Preamble

The House—after the adjournment on, 29th July for the Autumn Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sutton Coldfield Extension) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Kilmarnock Gas and Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEW WRITS.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued, during the Recess, a Warrant for a New Writ for the Borough of Southend-on-Sea, in the room of Rupert Edward Cecil Lee Guinness, C.B., C.M.G., commonly called Viscount Elveden, called up to the House of Peers.

New Writ for the County of Kent (Canterbury Division), in the room of the Right hon. Ronald McNeill (Manor of Northstead).—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TRADE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total figures of the British trade with Russia for the three months of July, August, and September of this year; and what were the total figures for the three months of July, August, and September, 1926?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): During the three months July-September, our imports from Russia were, in 1927, £7,600,000; in 1926, £6,400,000. During the same three months our exports, in 1927, were £1,022,000; in 1926, £1,200,000; and in the same three-monthly period of 1827
our re-exports were £800,000 and in that of 1926, £2,200,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the increase of imports, together with the decrease of exports and re-exports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The Russians are selling more here than they are buying.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then the effect is always to upset the balance of trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. On the contrary, it shows the unwillingness of the Russians to buy here, inspite of the great trade facilities afforded.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the present Government have done everything they can to discourage trade with Russia?

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the recently reported heavy purchases of nitrate, leather, and lead by Russia, and if he has any information to impart regarding military preparations by the U.S.S.R.?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to recent purchases amounting to upwards of 50,000 tons by the Russia Soviet Government of high-grade Chilian nitrate, which is used exclusively for the production of explosives, while it is understood that further orders have been given; whether he has any information as to the purposes for which these large purchases are being made: and whether he can inform the House of the source from which they have been financed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I believe it is true that the Russian Government has purchased 50,000 tons of nitrate presumably for munition purposes. I have also received information that the Russian Government has pur-
chased large quantities of leather and tanning material, and also lead, copper, and tungsten. All of these supplies could be used for civil or military purposes.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has information as to how these purchases have been financed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, I have not the information. I presume, if they are paid for, they are paid for out of Russian resources.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the Minister say from whence the Government in question bought the nitrate; what was the source of the nitrate?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was bought in Chile.

BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE (CASUALTIES).

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of passengers and crew lost by wrecks and caualties at sea to vessels belonging to Great Britain, exclusive of vessels of the Royal Navy, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of deaths reported as having occurred at sea from wrecks and other casualties to vessels registered in the United Kingdom was 229 during 1926, namely, 228 members of crews and one passenger.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

PARISH RELIEF, SCOTLAND.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the circular which he issued last year advising parish councils to observe the exchange payments as the scale for unemployed persons; and if, in view of the winter with the cost of fuel and light and other needs of life, he will advise the parish councils to resume the former practice of paying a small amount in addition to exchange benefit?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that I cannot see my way to in-
struct the Scottish Board of Health to withdraw the advice given in the circular referred to. I have no evidence that the allowances which were generally operative last winter proved to be insufficient.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that many of these persons are unemployed for the second winter in succession, and that originally they had somewhat small resources, will not the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the point that 29s. a week is totally inadequate to keep five persons, and ask that that sum may be augmented, if the parish council think fit?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The parish councils are in a position to deal with special circumstances in very special cases, and I think they have very wide powers.

STATISTICS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, male and female, respectively, are registered as unemployed at the present time; and how many are working short time?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): At 31st October, the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,106,100, of whom 918,400 were males and 187,700 females. Of this total, 289,400 were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any answer to the last part of the question, about the number working short time?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give the figure for short-time workers; they are not separately classified. The total given includes short-time workers with others as well.

Viscountess ASTOR: As there are so many more women unemployed than men, will the Government see that there is no further reduction in their grant—in fact, would they increase it—to the bureau set up for women's training?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Noble Lady is at fault. On an average, there is only one woman unemployed to between four and five men.

Mr. LUNN: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures of the total number of unemployed men and women in Great Britain; and the total number of miners registered as unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 31st October, 1,106,100 persons were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, of whom 885,000 were men, 156,600 women and 64,500 juveniles. At 24th October, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, 223,691 persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry were recorded as unemployed, including 89,779 who were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the continued rise in the unemployment figures, may I ask what is in the mind of the Government, apart from insurance, in regard to the provision of work for those who are unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I must correct my hon. Friend—

Mr. SPEAKER: Policy cannot be discussed now.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Might we ask what the Government intend to do, if anything, to deal with the 230,000 miners whom they have thrown out of work by their Eight Hours Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the first nine months of 1927 in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, who have had claims for benefit disallowed and are now in receipt of Poor Law relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the desired information are not available.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask whether any attempt has been made, in view of the gravity of this question in certain areas, to ascertain the number of people coming on the rates?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It would not be possible to obtain figures of that kind without an elaborate examination of all the cases in the different classes, and I am afraid it is not feasible.

Mr. BROWN: Are not these figures germane to the discussions to-morrow and on Thursday, and how can the House make up its mind on the subject unless it knows what is likely to be the outcome of the new conditions under which men will draw benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There may be figures that would be germane if procurable, but which simply cannot be procured. If the hon. Member will get into communication with me as to any figures that bear on the subject, I shall be glad to try and give them to him.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many boards of guardians in industrial areas can give him the figures as to the number of men put on the rates since the disallowance of unemployment benefit?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does not the Ministry of Labour publish every quarter a statement containing this information?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A certain amount.

Mr. STEPHEN: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider working out in a particular area the figures asked for in this question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not promise that particular kind of figure without ascertaining the amount of labour that would be involved and whether it would be typical of the country as a whole. I am perfectly prepared to see if there are any figures which would throw light on this aspect of the situa tion and which it would be possible to procure.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that boards of guardians in certain areas have given the right hon. Gentleman these figures, and is not their information reliable, seeing that they make very elaborate investigations before they grant relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. they have not given me those figures.

Mr. SULLIVAN: In view of the fact that this only applies to industrial areas, and that boards of guardians and parish councils have these figures, if the right hon. Gentleman has not got them, does not he think it desirable that we should have them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They have not those figures.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to get these figures because they would prove to him that there are more unemployed than appear on the register? Is not that the explanation?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for psychology.

Mr. BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to standard and extended benefit, respectively, disallowed from the 1st January, 1927, to, 31st October, 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Between 10th January, 1927, and 10th October, out of 2,448,727 applications for extended benefit considered by local employment committees in Great Britain, 458,446 were recommended for disallowance. In addition, 275,152 applications for benefit were disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer-during the period 1st January, 1927, to 31st October, including both standard and extended benefit claims, for which separate statistics are not available. In a number of these cases benefit was subsequently allowed on appeal to Courts of Referees and the Umpire. I am unable to state the number of separate individuals included in the figures.

Mr. BROWN: Has any attempt been made, by examination of the books, to get an estimate of the number of persons coming within the categories which would not qualify them for benefit under the proposed new standard?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have made one inquiry in order to see about what the average effect of the contribution might be.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, may I ask whether any attempt is made to trace what happens to the disallowed person? Is any relationship shown between the figures of the Employment Exchanges and the increase in the figures of the parish councils or boards guardians, and, if not, cannot this be given?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: I have had one such attempt made, to which I referred last Session. I could not quote
the results from memory, but I will give the hon. Member the reference if he wishes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Are persons who are not likely to get employment in insured trades included in the number given in the answer?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: People who are disallowed or not recommended for benefit on grounds analogous to what the hon. Member states—those are not the exact words of the condition—are included.

Miss WILKINSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have been refused unemployment benefit in the period 1st June to 30th October, 1927, and how many of these have been refused on the ground of long-standing unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the period 14th June to 10th October, 1927, 1,013,464 applications for extended benefit were considered by local employment committees in Great Britain, and 177,910 were recommended for disallowance. In addition, 123,527 applications were disallowed by the chief insurance officer in the period 1st June to 31st October, 1927, but in a number of these cases benefit was subsequently allowed on appeal to Courts of Referees and the Umpire. I am unable to give the number of separate individuals included in these figures. Long-standing unemployment is not by itself necessarily a ground for the disallowance of unemployment benefit, but during the period referred to above 58,368 applications for extended benefit were recommended by committees for disallowance on the ground that the applicants had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the fact that these cases of long-standing unemployment are coming largely from a few very necessitous areas, is the Department taking any steps to meet the authorities in those areas to train these men or to get them into different employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have made constant endeavours in areas in which unemployment is heaviest to see whether it is possible to transfer men
to other areas. That is constantly our preoccupation, and we do it as far as humanly possible. I shall be exceedingly glad to have help from any quarter.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men have passed through each of the day-training centres of his Department since the inception of such centres up to and including 31st October; and how many of these men have secured regular employment and what trades they entered after leaving the centres, and the period of training in each case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Up to the end of October a total of 2,994 men had passed through a course of training at the day-training centres, 1,800 at Birmingham and 1,194 at Wallsend-on-Tyne. Of this number 2,763 or 92 per cent. are known to have secured employment after training. The period of training in no case exceeds 26 weeks and some men find employment after a shorter course. The training is designed generally to improve the men's employability and the employment obtained after training covers more than 30 different occupations.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why does the Department not increase the number of these training centres?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of increase is a question on the one hand of finance and on the other of finding avenues which would be open to the trainees.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that even after training there is not a favourable opportunity for men to get to work, and that that is the reason for not starting more training centres?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is always a difficulty in getting them employment afterwards under suitable conditions and in suitable occupations, but I am afraid I could not explain the whole of the reasons within the compass of an answer.

Mr. STEPHEN: Could the Minister definitely state the 30 trades in which there is a shortage of trained men to which 92 per cent. of the trainees have gone?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not at Question Time.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is a record kept of the kind of employment obtained?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Mr. LANSBURY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men have passed through the residential training centres connected with his Department since the opening of those centres up to 31st October; how many were discharged as unfit for training owing to physical or other disability; how many have obtained work on the land in Great Britain; how many have emigrated; and what number have obtained employment otherwise than on the land?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Up to the end of October 988 men had passed through a course of training for employment on the land overseas, of whom 976 have been placed on farms in Australia or Canada. 364 men received a general course of training for industrial employment in this country, of whom 309 are known to have secured employment. In addition, 63 men have been discharged as unfit to continue training on medical grounds.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is any attempt made to get any of these men work on the land in this country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those who are intended for employment overseas have been accepted as such. On the other hand, what is known as training or industrial employment fits them for employment as handy men, whether in town. or country, but I am unable to say how many are in the towns and how many in the country without looking the figures up.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take a leaf out of the Greek Government's book and follow their example in finding men work on the land?

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is it not a fact that a great many more people would be employed on the land if they were used to hard work?

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these men refuse to go abroad and cannot get land work at home, relief is immediately stopped?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me any cases, I will consider them.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it not the policy of the Government, when a man tries to learn another occupation, to stop paying relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I have given the right hon. Gentleman a case.

JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons and juveniles have attended day training schools in Great Britain during the 12 months ending 31st October; how many are known to have obtained permanent employment; and in what trades?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: About 41,000 boys and girls attended Juvenile Unemployment Centres during the year ending 31st October. I understand that practically all these boys and girls, on leaving the centres, entered employment, but no detailed information is available. 2,929 women and 269 girls completed courses of training during the year at centres conducted by the Central Committee for Women's Training and Employment. Of those trained during the first six months, 73 per cent. are known to have entered employment on leaving the centre. Later figures are not available.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why are there not more of these training centres, in view of the fact that there is such a very large and increasing number of very young people walking the streets?

Viscountess ASTOR: As this is the only thing the Government are doing for unemployed women—and that is a good deal more than the Socialist Government ever did—might I appeal to the Government not to reduce the grant, but to increase it, so that these women would not come on the dole?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that question now.

Mr. STEPHEN: Have the trainees who have obtained employment got references from the Employment Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INFANTILE DEATH RATE, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the infantile death rate in Gorbals and Hutchesontown Wards in the Gorbals Parliamentary Division of the quarters ending

Following is the statement:


Ward.
Deaths of children under 1 year per 1,000 births.


1926.
1927.


Quarter ended March.
Quarter ended June.
Quarter ended September.
Quarter ended March.
Quarter ended June.
Quarter ended September.


Gorbals
148
139
69
130
65
97


Hutchesontown
138
82
68
113
134
80

Mr. STEPHEN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the infantile mortality rate for the Mile End, Whitevale, and Dennistoun Wards in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow, for the quarter ended September, for the years 1926 and 1927?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the statement desired includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Ward.
Deaths of children under 1 year per 1,000 births.


Quarter ended Sept., 1926.
Quarter ended Sept., 1927.


Mile End
128
119


Whitevale
48
158


Dennistoun
54
40

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet come to any agreement with the Glasgow education authority regarding the number of new schools to be built to meet the growing needs of the city and replace the schools condemned; and what is the nature of the agreement?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A building programme approved by the Glasgow education authority is at present under the consideration of the Department.

March, June, and September for the years 1926 and 1927?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the statement desired includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he is going to take some practical steps? It is two years since I was told that the matter was under consideration, and I should like to know when there is a chance of a recommendation being made?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope a decision will be reached within a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 21.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the Housing Acts during the six months ended 30th September, 1927, and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for the previous half-year; and when he will be in a position to state the number of houses built during the same period by private enterprise without any subsidy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): During the six months ended the 30th September last, 134,500 houses were completed under the Housing Acts, as compared with 78,416 in the preceding six months. The numbers completed by private enterprise without subsidy during the same periods were 27,663 and 32,650 respectively.

GLASGOW (SUBSIDY).

Mr. STEPHEN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of sub-
sidy under the different housing schemes, respectively, which has been spent in Glasgow since 1918?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the statement desired includes a number of detailed figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The total amount of State subsidy paid from 1918 to the close of the financial year ended 31st March, 1927, in respect of the various housing schemes in Glasgow was £867,529 15s., made up as follows:

£
s.
d.


Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919
770,693
3
2


Housing (Financial Assistance to Builders) Scheme (Scotland), 1920
36,740
0
0


Housing, etc., Act, 1923: Houses erected by the Local Authority
8,246
0
0


Houses erected by Private Enterprise
2,447
0
0


Slum Clearance Schemes
48,851
11
10


Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924: Houses erected by the Local Authority
552
0
0



£867,529
15
0

The whole of the above payments were made between the financial years 1920–21 and 1926–27, no subsidy having been payable during the years 1918–19 and 1919–20.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made so far this year with the policy of slum clearances?

Sir K. WOOD: One hundred and four schemes dealing with slum areas have been confirmed. These schemes cover approximately 14,000 houses, of which 8,694 had been acquired by the 1st of October and 4,363 demolished. Tenders for the erection of 7,776 houses in satisfaction of the rehousing obligations imposed by these schemes had been approved at that date and 5,205 houses actually completed. Since the 1st of January, 11 schemes have been submitted by local authorities and 11 confirmed by
my right hon. Friend. If will be appreciated that during the current year local authorities have concentrated their energies on the building of as large a number of houses as possible under their new building programme, and my right hon. Friend has every reason to suppose that an increasing number of them will now turn their attention to the execution of slum clearance schemes which they have already had under consideration for some time past.

BRISTOL.

Mr. WALTER BAKER (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, as a result of the inclement weather during the past summer, the Bristol City Council has been unable to complete its programme of houses which it was hoped would be entitled to the full subsidy; and whether, having regard to the many representations which he has received from local authorities he will consider the necessary steps whereby an extension of time may be granted to enable the houses in process of construction to receive the full subsidy?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received a communication from the Bristol Town Council about this matter. I may point out that the number of houses completed by local authorities during the past summer was substantially in excess of the number completed during the previous summer. The number of houses certified by all local authorities in England and Wales as completed by them during the three months ended September, 1927, was 51,730., as compared with 19,660 in the corresponding period in 1926. The total number of all assisted houses certified as completed in the month of September last reached the unprecedented figure of 52,000. As regards Bristol, the number of houses completed by the town council during the three months ended September last was 501, whilst the figure for the corresponding three months in 1926 was 323. My right hon. Friend has no power to grant any extension of time and he would clearly not be justified in proposing any amendment of the law for this purpose.

Mr. PALING: Are we to take it that that will apply to all authorities who may not have completed their contracts in time.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINES DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL ADVISER).

Mr. LUNN: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can now give the name of the new medical adviser to the Mines Department and his qualifications to enable him to deal with the various diseases peculiar to the mining industry?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): One of the candidates for the post has been selected and the usual inquiries by the Civil Service Commission are proceeding. If the hon. Member will repeat his question in 10 days' time, I expect then to be able to reply.

MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to the future of the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Mines, and the Department of Overseas Trade, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It will, I think, be more convenient if I make a statement on this subject somewhat later in the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PICCADILLY TUBE RAILWAY (EXTENSION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 9.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information as to when the Piccadilly Tube will be extended northwards from Finsbury Park?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that the company are not prepared to proceed further with this matter at the present time. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the first paragraph of the recently published report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which states that under existing conditions the railway companies are not prepared, or are not in a position to raise the capital necessary for substantial schemes of extention or improvement.

LONDON TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement upon the Report of
the London Traffic Advisory Committee dealing with the problem of passenger-carrying transport and what steps he proposes to take to carry out the proposals recommended therein?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have sent copies of the Report to the passenger transport undertakings in the London Traffic Area, asking for their observations on the Committee's proposals. The Report has also been published and placed on sale. I shall not be in a position to make any statement upon the subject until I have received and considered the replies.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he is likely to be in a position to give the House any further information on this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, because it must depend on the time the various bodies take to consider my request for their observations.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the statements being made that the Government have decided to introduce the necessary legislation next year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I know nothing of those statements.

AGRICULTURE (WAGES).

Mr. STEPHEN: 13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the percentage increase in agricultural workers' average earnings over those of 1914; and how this percentage compares with the increase in the cost of living?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): No precise comparisons can be made on the subject, as statistics are not available of the actual earnings of the various classes of agricultural workers. The average, however, of the weekly minimum rates of wages at present in force under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act for ordinary adult male workers shows an increase of 76 per cent. on the estimated average weekly wage in 1914. This comparison takes no account of overtime payments nor of extra earnings at special seasons, and no allowance is made for the shorter hours now worked. The statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labour with regard to the cost of living show that the
average level of retail prices on the 1st October, 1927, was approximately 67 per cent. above that of July, 1914.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (TREATMENT).

Sir EVELYN CECIL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recommendations of the recent departmental committee on the treatment of young offenders have yet been officially considered or approved; and, in particular, whether it is intended to adopt the policy of erecting a limited number of central remand houses for their detention?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The recommendations are being considered as a whole, and it is not possible yet to announce any conclusion, but I am very sympathetic to a system of remand homes. It is largely a matter of expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give to the House with regard to the appointment of the Statutory Commission?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement that will be made at the end of Questions.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: In assenting to that course, may I take it from you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not lose any opportunity to put a Supplementary Question?

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any announcement to make with regard to the appointment of the Indian Statutory Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; and I apologise to the House for the rather long answer. As the House will remember, one of the provisions contained in the Indian Reforms Act of 1919 required
"at the expiration of 10 years after the passing" of that Act, the appointment, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, of persons to be a Commission to inquire into the working of the Indian constitution and to consider the desirability of establishing, extending, modifying or restricting the degree of responsible government then existing there. The Government have decided, for various reasons which I need not now specify, that it is desirable to anticipate the date (December, 1929) contemplated by the Act and to appoint this most important Royal Commission forthwith.

Balancing the various considerations and endeavouring to give due weight to each, His Majesty's Government have decided upon the following procedure:

(a) They propose to recommend to His Majesty that the Statutory Commission should be composed as follows:

The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir John Simon) (Chairman);

Lord Burnham;

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal;

The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan);

The right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Stephen Walsh);

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Mines (Colonel Lane Fox);

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee).

These names will be submitted to both Houses in Resolutions.

(b) His Majesty's Government cannot, of course, dictate to the Commission what procedure it shall follow, but they are of opinion that its task in taking evidence would be greatly facilitated if it were to invite the Central Indian Legislature to appoint a Joint Select Committee, chosen from its elected and nominated unofficial members, which would draw up its views and proposals in writing and lay them before the Commission for examination in such manner as the latter may decide. This Committee might remain in being for any consultation which the Commission might desire at subsequent stages of the inquiry. It should be clearly understood that the purpose of this suggestion is not to limit the discretion of the Commission in hearing other witnesses.

(c) His Majesty's Government suggest that a similar procedure should be adopted with the provincial legislatures.

(d) The vast area to be covered may make it desirable that the task of taking evidence on the more purely administrative questions involved should be undertaken by some other authority which would be in the closest touch with the Commission. His Majesty's Government suggest that the Commission on arrival in India should consider and decide by what machinery this work may most appropriately be discharged. This will not, of course, debar the Commission from the advantage of taking evidence itself upon these subjects to whatever extent it may think desirable.

(e) When the Commission has reported and its Report has been examined by the Government of India and His Majesty's Government it will be the duty of the latter to present proposals to Parliament. But it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to ask Parliament to adopt these proposals without first giving a full opportunity for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute its view upon them. And to this end it is intended to invite Parliament to refer these proposals to consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses and to facilitate the presentation to that Committee both of the views of the Indian Central Legislature by delegations, who will be invited to attend and confer with the Joint Committee, and also of the views of any other bodies whom the Joint Parliamentary Committee may desire to consult.

The ante-dating of the Commission involves an amendment of the Act and a Bill to this end will be introduced at once.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am sure the whole House will recognise the grave importance of the statement that has just been made. May I ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take these Resolutions recommending His Majesty's Government to make these appointments, and when we may expect to have the Bill before us? The sooner the better.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree. I cannot give the actual date, but it will be our endeavour to have it as soon as possible. We will keep in touch through the usual channels. I understand that the
Bill amending the law has to come first; it will be a Bill merely altering the date. It may be for the convenience of the House to say that I think the main discussion will take place better on the Resolutions in which the names are concerned. That will give us a wider scope.

Mr. MacDONALD: Does the Prime Minister propose to introduce the Bill here or in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand the Bill is being introduced in another place to-day.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it the intention to fix any date for the termination of the labours of the Commission, or can the Prime Minister give us any indication when he anticipates the Commission will finish its labours?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. With regard to questions on details of that kind they can be answered much better when the discussion takes place in this House, and Members have not had time yet to study the answer, which is rather a long one.

Sir FRANK NELSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the personnel of the Commission he has just announced was apparently known in Calcutta, four days ago and was announced by the entire Press of Great Britain three days ago?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have no information as to how that leakage has occurred. To the best of our belief, it occurred in India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the cost of the Statutory Commission will fall on the British Budget or the Indian Budget?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question now. Obviously, all these questions can be replied to in the course of the discussion.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it too late to include an Indian on the Royal Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a broad question of principle which, if the hon. Member feels strongly about, he will be able to raise during the Debate when it takes place.

SPENCER'S HOTEL, MADRAS (ASSAULT CHARGE).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information with regard to the alleged asault at Spencer's Hotel, Madras?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend has received a full account of the incident from the official concerned and the comments of his official superiors. He is satisfied that no assault was committed on the Indian servant by the official in question and that the admitted assault by the wife of the official was of a trifling nature. As the assault was not committed by a Government officer it rested not with Government, but with the person assaulted to take action. The servant, however, in spite of the assistance of numerous advisers, did not think fit to file a complaint in Court.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was present on the occasion and witnessed the assault?

Earl WINTERTON: According to the statement of the official in question, he was not present.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not very undesirable that these unfounded accusations should be made against British officers, and do they not do a great deal of harm?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Arising out of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), is it not out of Order to put a question relating to the personal integrity or veracity of an hon. Member of this House, in the absence of that hon. Member, when no notice has been given to him of the intention to put the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that does not arise out of the point under discussion. We are dealing now only with official facts.

Mr. MACLEAN: But was not the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston brought into the matter in the Supplementary Question?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In a dirty Tory manner it was brought in.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question as I heard it was whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston was present on the same occasion. I think that is merely a matter of fact. I do not think there is any reflection on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That was what the question was put for. You know that quite well.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the Noble Lord take steps to make the answer he has given in the House as public in India as was the original statement?

Earl WINTERTON: I regret very much that so much attention and so much prominence were given in the first place to what appears to have been a very trivial case of assault, where no British official was concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PRESENT SITUATION.

Sir J. POWER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any further statement on the situation in China?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Since the last summary of affairs in China was given on the 27th of July in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) the civil war has entered on a new phase. The withdrawal of the troops of the Nationalist Government of Nanking southward from North Kiangsu continued during August; they were followed up by Sun Chuan-fang, who occupied Pukow and other places on the Yangtze, and made one or two abortive raids across the river with Nanking as their objective. Pukow was re-occupied by Nanking troops during the first week of September, and Sun Chuan-fang was ultimately forced to retire to a point some 100 miles north of Pukow. Hostilities on this front now appear to be at a standstill.
A conference of the Kuomintang was held at Nanking on the 15th of September, with the object of effecting the reunion of the Hankow and Nanking Governments, but Tang Sheng-chih, the commander-in-chief at Hankow, refused
to attend it. On the 20th of September, the formation of a new Nationalist Government of China was announced; this Government made the usual professions of hostility to Communism. Apart from this, it was remarkable for the almost complete exclusion of Sun Yat-sen's family and connections. The Nationalist Government at Hankow passed out of existence, Messrs. Eugene Chen and Borodin having already left for Moscow, and Tang Sheng-chih ruled there as military governor. At the end of September, the Nanking Government declared Tank Sheng-chih a counter-revolutionary and ordered a punitive expedition against him. This punitive expedition is now in progress, but so far no fighting of importance has taken place.
At the end of September, hostilities broke out between Yen Hsi-shan, the military governor of Shansi, and Chang Tso-lin. At the first attack Chang Tsolin's troops were compelled to withdraw, but since the 10th of October he has had a series of successes and has pushed the Shansi invaders back to their own province. At the same time, Feng Yu-hsiang has been attacked in Honan by the Shantung troops of Chang Tsung-Chang, and was at first forced to retire, but is now successfully counter-attacking.
The generally unsettled conditions in the Yangtze Valley and the unstable state of affairs at Hankow have been reflected in the administration of the ex-British Concession at that port. The Chinese Director of the Administration fled to Shanghai on the 26th September in order to avoid arrest by the military authorities. Since that date the administration of the area has been carried on by the remaining British and Chinese members of the council without a director. A new director has been appointed by General Tang Sheng-chih's political council and confirmed by the Nanking authorities; it is uncertain how far this appointment is in conformity with the Chen-O'Malley agreement, and accordingly he has not been recognised, though he has made efforts to force himself on the council
As a result of the investigations of the British Trade Mission on the Yangtze, it has been found possible for British shipping companies to resume a restricted service from Hankow to Changsha, where conditions were found to be distinctly improved, there being no sign of anti-
foreign feeling and the Communist element being sternly repressed. Chung-king also was found to be quiet, with little anti-foreign feeling and rigid suppression of Communism. The Consulate at this port is being reopened and that at Ichang will also be reopened as soon as a consular officer is available. British steamer navigation has been experimentally resumed on the Upper Yangtze, and I understand that British merchants are returning to Changsha, Ichang and Chungking.
It is reported that a new independent Nationalist Government, composed of members of the Sun Yat-sen faction, is now being organised in Canton.
His Majesty's Minister has reported the revival of the anti-British boycott at Canton, and His Majesty's Government are considering the steps to be taken to deal with this development. The latest information is to the effect that the local authorities are making endeavours to restrain the pickets, who have not yet functioned afloat.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the Foreign Secretary state how many troops we are still keeping at Shanghai, and whether there is any prospect of a reduction?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will address his question to the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. LOOKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which authority is now entitled to appoint a director of the Hankow Municipal Administration under the terms of the Chen-O'Malley Agreement?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. That is a question which it is easier to, put than to answer.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. THURTLE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether all the Section "A" Reservists who were called up for service with the Shanghai Relief Force have either been brought back or are on their way back to this country; and whether he is in a position to state how many of these men have actually been demobilised, and of those demobolised how many had employment waiting for them?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of the Section "A" Reservists called up in January, 408 have arrived from China and been re-transferred to the Reserve; the remainder are on their way home. Those called up in April are due to sail during November. I have no definite information how many of those Reservists who have been transferred to the Reserve have found employment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to assist these men to be reinstated in civilian employment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have done all that I personally can by making an appeal to the employers who previously employed them to take them back in their employ, but it must be remembered that a good many of them were not in employment when they were called up. I hope employers who have power to give employment will remember that these men are well deserving of their country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of these men were brought out of the workhouse, and how many of them have gone back? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Why is there no answer to that question?[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] In my constituency, Sir, men who fought in the War are in the workhouse.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put a question in the proper way; that is not a proper question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I put my question in what I considered to be a proper way. I asked a question arising out of the original question, how many men coming back from China had come out of the workhouse, and how many of them were going back to the workhouse. Is not that a proper way to put a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not the manner in which the hon. Member put his question.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I had no knowledge that there were any such.

LAW COURTS (MEDICAL WITNESSES).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 20.
asked the Minister of Health what decision, if any, he has come to with regard to the necessity of allowing medical men to preserve professional secrecy in the Law Courts with regard to certain diseases?

Sir K. WOOD: This question is still under consideration.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Miss WILKINSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of widows' pensions that have been applied for to 30th September, 1927, and the total number that have been refused?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows' pensions, orphan allowances, and old age pensions awarded to date under the Act of 1925?

Sir K. WOOD: On the latest figures available children's allowances and orphans' pensions have been awarded in approximately 337,200 cases; old age pensions to persons over 70 years of age in 215,743 cases. In addition provisional awards of pensions to persons between the ages of 65 and 70 which will be payable as from January next have been awarded to more than 300,000 persons in England and Wales.
The total number of applications for widows' pensions to 30th September, 1927, was 291,502, and the total number of awards to date is 228,560. Of the applications, 182,281 were from widows whose husbands died before the commencement of the Act, and 109,221 from widows whose husbands died after its commencement; 61,394 were either rejected or withdrawn, 49,774 being of the former category and 11,620 of the latter.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the large number of refusals of which the hon. Member has given us the details, and in view of the very real hardship caused in many of the border-line cases, in regard to which the law is not clear, can we have an assurance that these cases will be reviewed, because a very real hardship is being caused?

Sir K. WOOD: We have to comply strictly with the Act of Parliament. I do not agree with the hon. Member when she says that a large proportion of these cases have been refused. It is the policy of the Minister of Health to strain the law where he can in favour of the applicant, and that is confirmed by many thousands of cases in which applicants are drawing pensions for the first time.

Miss WILKINSON: If it be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to strain the law in favour of applicants, why is the practice of the Department not in accord with that policy?

Sir K. WOOD: The statement made is that there are now thousands of cases in which the applicants are drawing pensions for the first time.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is it not a fact that no claims are refused except such as do not come within the scheme of the Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of aged persons as to the conditions under which pensions at 65 years of age will be granted, and can he make a short statement showing the conditions under which aged persons are entitled to pensions at 65 years of age?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to furnish the information.

Mr. LOOKER: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say to what extent the granting of these pensions will affect outdoor relief?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give the figures. There will certainly be a reduction in that respect.

Mr. THURTLE: Have the Government in contemplation any amending legislation with a view to bringing in some of these hard cases?

Sir K. WOOD: Not at present, but I would remind the hon. Member that he himself voted for the total rejection of the scheme.

DISARMAMENT.

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement as to the progress of the various negotiations for reduction of armaments; and when the matter will come up, and in what form, for discussion in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the recent Conference on the limitation of naval armaments was unable to reach agreement, and the only discussions for the reduction of armaments now in progress are those of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament. The last Assembly of the League passed a resolution requesting the Council to urge the Preparatory Commission to hasten the completion of its technical work and to convene the disarmament conference immediately this work has been completed. It also requested the Council to instruct the Preparatory Commission to create a committee which would be placed at the Commission's disposal and would be charged with the duty of considering, on the lines indicated by the Commission, the measures capable of giving States the guarantees of arbitration and security necessary to enable them to fix the level of their armaments at the lowest possible figures. In pursuance of this resolution, the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament will meet on the 30th of this month. The Council holds its usual quarterly meeting at the beginning of December and will, no doubt, give effect to the wish expressed by the Assembly. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position at present to make any statement.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the participation of Soviet Russia in the negotiations, has that Power made any communication as to the extent of its own armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.

Captain GARRO - JONES: Who will take the place of Lord Cecil when the Preparatory Commission meets?

The PRIME MINISTER: The holder of the same office, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY AND MUNITIONS LEVY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts and repayments of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy during the present financial year to date; and the amount of arrears still outstanding and the amount thereof likely to be realised?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The gross receipt of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy from the 1st April to 31st October, 1927, was, approximately, £3,244,000 and the repayments were £3,187,000, leaving a net receipt of about £57,000. I regret I am unable to furnish any estimate of the arrears of tax remaining to be collected.

BETTING DUTY.

Colonel DAY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total yield to the Treasury from betting taxation for the separate months of July, August, September, and October; and the total yield since the introduction of this duty to the last convenient date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate revenue derived from betting taxation in the months referred to by the hon. Member is as follows:

£


July
…
…
…
272,700


August
…
…
…
267,900


September
…
…
…
245,700


October
…
…
…
243,500

The approximate amount derived in the year 1st November, 1926, to 31st October, 1927, is £2,766,700.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this duty was derived from greyhound racing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, an inconceivably small sum.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statements that have appeared in the Press lately attributing to him that over £750,000 has been derived from greyhound racing are correct?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that any such statements have been made. If so, they are wrongfully attributed.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly how these figures compare with the original estimate of receipts from betting taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The House must remember that the original proposal was for a higher rate of duty, and on the basis of that higher rate of duty I think the original estimate might well have been realised. But we reduced the duty because it was represented that the volume of betting was greater than we had first been led to apprehend. If our original figures were correct it was not to be expected that the reduced rates would yield much more than half the figure in our present account.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that these figures do approximately touch the 50 per cent. point referred to?

Viscountess ASTOR: And are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pleased with his Betting Duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think I can honestly say that I am very pleased with it, but I should have been twice as pleased if the yield had been twice as much.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of savings certificates taken out since 31st March last up to the latest date available; and what is the total amount paid off and the aggregate interest attached to it during the same period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: To the 30th September the receipts from certificates sold were £16,754,000, the encashments £18,363,000, and the accrued interest paid £6,335,000.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to facilitating the presentation of a correct picture of the capital liabilities of the country and an accurate
forecast of annual expenditure, he will consider a revision of the method of accounting in relation to savings certificates?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first point a careful estimate of the amount of accumulated interest unpaid is made annually and published in the Finance Accounts. On the second point I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) on the 5th May last.

NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY (GUARANTEE).

Mr. LUNN: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sale of the Newfoundland paper and pulp works at Cornerbrook has been completed; and what the position is now with regard to the guarantee of £2,000,000 by the British Government under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part that the position is unchanged.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the guarantee suggested, there is anything included for the building of a new railway in that area?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that question without notice.

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.

Colonel DAY: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of war photographs that have been exchanged between the Imperial War Museum and the German Government; and the average daily attendance of visitors to this museum for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, giving comparable figures for the two previous years?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. A. M. Samuel): The War Museum possesses 5,000 German photographs received from unofficial sources, and hopes to acquire 3,000 more by exchange when arrangements are completed. The average daily attendance for
the year ended the 30th September, 1927, was 636, and for a similar period, in the two preceding years, 562 and 641, respectively.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of the upkeep of this museum is and how much is contributed by this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Mr. BROMLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if it is proposed to have photographs taken of the 7,000 officers and soldiers who are still receiving in-patient treatment so that the people may see what war means?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISIT TO INDIA).

Sir J. DAVIDSON (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War what is the specific object of his projected tour in India, and if the cost thereof is to be borne by the Exchequer, by the Government of India, or by himself?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My visit to India is in no sense an official inspection of the British troops there for whom the Government of India is solely responsible. But there are many important problems of finance, organisation and administration, e.g., the lines on which future progress in mechanisation is to be made and the future composition of various units of the British Army which-depend for their successful solution upon, a common policy agreed with the Indian authorities. I hope from my visit to India and my discussion with the various authorities there to be able to make some progress in dealing with these and similar matters. The only charge in connection with my visit which will fall on British or Indian funds is the cost of my own passage to India, some £250, which will be defrayed from Army Funds.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any officer from the War Office is to accompany the Secretary of State for War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: An officer from the General Staff who was going in any event will go with me.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: In view of the request of the Secretary of State for War that I should postpone my further question, I do not propose to put it to-day.

ABYSSINIA (BLUE NILE WATERS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the report that an American company has been granted a concession by the Abyssinian Government which would enable that firm to control the water supplies of Egypt and the Sudan, and if Great Britain has any treaty rights in this important matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; but I have not as yet received any official information as to the reported negotiations, nor as to the attitude of the Abyssinian Government in the matter. If it had been the case that the Abyssinian Government contemplated the grant of such a concession, without consulting us, this action would constitute a violation of the Treaty of 1902 between His Majesty's Government and the Emperor Menelik, whereby the Abyssinian Government undertook not to construct, or allow to be constructed, such a dam except by agreement with His Majesty's 'Government and the Government of the Sudan, but I am confident that the Abyssinian Government are not unmindful of this obligation, and this is confirmed by the interview with Dr. Martin which appears in this morning's papers.
My meeting with the Egyptian Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs gave me the opportunity to put him in full possession of our views and to take counsel with him on this matter, in which the Egyptian Government naturally takes a keen interest.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has there been any communication between the Foreign Office, the British Government and Washington on this matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon Friend means between the British and American Governments, no.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to take steps themselves to barrage the Nile?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. We have made proposals to the Abyssinian Government with that in view. That is being pursued and is the subject of negotiations.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the outlay would be?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. An estimate was made, but I would not undertake to say whether that estimate can be absolutely relied upon. In any case, my memory cannot be relied upon to repeat the figure without notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of America not agreeing to our terms, I suppose that this Government would be prepared to call upon English boys and Scottish boys to go and have a war with the Americans.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In the public interest, may I be permitted to say that no question arises between the Government of the United States and His Majesty's Government on this matter, and I anticipate no difficulties between them.

CENOTAPH SERVICE, ARMISTICE DAY (BROADCASTING).

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions not on the Order Paper will have to stand over.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have one Private Notice Question with respect to the broadcasting of the Cenotaph service on Armistice Day. The position is that the apparatus can be put up in 48 hours if the Home Secretary gives his consent. It will be too late if the question is put on the Paper. May I suggest that this is a question outside the purview of ordinary questions, and that it is one which, in the usual course of events, would be a question of urgency?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will permit the hon. and gallant Member to ask his question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has been approached for permission to broadcast the religious ceremony at the Cenotaph on Armistice Day; whether he has refused permission; and, if so, whether he will state the reason?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have already fully explained the reasons for my decision in a letter to the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen), which was published in the Press on 1st November. If the hon. and gallant Member so desires, I will be glad to send him a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reasons which he gave, namely, that people could go to the various ceremonies in different parts of the country, do not apply to people who are detained at home by their work or who are ill and wish to hear the ceremony on the wireless? Will he reconsider it from that point of view?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied, after very careful consideration, that the number of people who would be detained through illness would be very small, and the benefit to them would not be comparable to the change that would be made in the solemnity of the service.

Major COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has never yet, either in his letter to me or otherwise, given any official reasons why the ceremony cannot be broadcast, and that it has been purely a personal expression of opinion? Is he aware that he has hurt the feelings of very many people who desire to join in this Armistice Day celebration? Is he also aware that this is the second occasion on which he has offended the susceptibilities of ex-service men, and can he promise, at any rate, that next year he will not repeat it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As regards the latter part of the question, I do not know to what the hon. and gallant Member is referring.

Major COHEN: The wearing of the medals last year.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member is quite mistaken. The question of medals is not a matter for the Home Secretary, but for another Secretary of State. The arrangements made this year with the full concurrence of the Minister responsible for the arrangements for the service will give full satisfaction to all ex-service men and their relatives. With regard to the service itself, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that I would be the last person to use my personal view. The answer which I wrote to him was in every sense an official answer on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of illness. There is another class of people, namely, those at a distance who cannot get to the various ceremonies, and those who are at work, who could hear the ceremony on the wireless.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to ask a Private Notice Question which I have addressed to the Home Secretary who, I understand, is quite prepared to give an answer to-day? It is a very urgent matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was informed that I did not consider it to be of so urgent a character as to make an exception of it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Sir J. POWER: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if it is intended to introduce any new Bills during the Autumn Session; and, if so, what Bills will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: If new legislation is found to be necessary, notice will be given in the usual way.

Mr. STEPHEN: When is it intended to introduce a new Franchise Bill for women on the same terms as men?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not before Christmas.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
That during the remainder of the Session—
(1) Government Business do have precedence;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;
(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday.
4.0 p.m.
I have to introduce this Resolution in common with other right hon. Members of this House who, in their turn, have acted as Leader of the House. On previous occasions I have described it as a hardy annual. This year I have something new to say about it—I hope this hardy annual is very near its end. If the House accepts the recommendations of the Select Committee which was set up at an earlier part of the Session to deal with the question of private Members' time—if the House accepts the Report which they have presented, then it will never be necessary for the Leader of the House, in any future Autumn Session, to move this Resolution. I believe the House when they come to consider the amendment of Standing Order No. 4 will not hesitate to deprive themselves of what, I have no doubt, in past times has been an interesting discussion.
I do not think it is necessary to say anything at this period about this Resolution, beyond reminding the House that when the present Standing Orders were drawn up, a quarter of a century ago, Earl Balfour, then Mr. Arthur Balfour, who was leading the House, consented, somewhat reluctantly, to insert a limiting period, namely, the words "until Michaelmas" in the Sub-section of the Clause which dealt with private Members' time. He did that because he anticipated that the House, in the subsequent Rules of
Procedure, would make such regulations as to ensure that the Autumn Session, which is, in fact, merely a continuation of the Session begun in the earlier part of the year, and is called together to meet unforeseen business, should be devoted to that business to the exclusion of private Members' business. That was never done, and we have been left in the anomalous position up to this time, that this Motion has to be made annually.
I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman, who has led this House for so many years, that this is probably the last occasion on which this Resolution will ever be moved, because the Committee of the House which has been considering the allocation of private Members' time, has recommended such alterations in the Standing Orders as will do away with the need of this Resolution in future years if the House considers fit to adopt the recommendations. It may be that the House may desire to adopt that Report. Though the Government take away Wednesday evenings and Fridays which might be available to private members under the Standing Orders if this Resolution were not passed, they retain the other privileges which belong to Members of the House, and it must be remembered that those responsible for calculating the business of the House make no allowance for private Members, so that if the House for any reason were to reject this Motion it would be necessary to sit beyond Christmas in order to conclude the essential business.
With regard to the business for this week, I might take this opportunity of stating that Friday is Armistice Day. I have thought over this matter, and I think it might be for the general convenience of the House if we met at noon on Friday, adjourning at Four o'clock as usual, and I propose to put down a Motion to that effect before Friday. There is nothing more I think I need say on this Resolution. The business for this end of the Session was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was leading the House in my absence at the end of July. If there should be any business which was not included in the list of Bills he gave, it will be announced in due course. If, as is often the case before Christmas, some small Bill comes along which it is necessary to pass, or there is some question to be raised, in any case the House will have due notice
of such business, and with such exceptions the business, as far as we can accomplish it, will be as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of July.

Mr. R. MacDONALD: The first word I say is one of agreement with the Prime Minister: I hope this will be the last time that this Resolution is before the House. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us an opportunity of discussing the report of the Committee before we adjourn at Christmas? Because, quite obviously, if the Government really mean to amend our Standing Orders, it will be for the convenience of everybody that it should be done without unnecessary delay. Also with regard to Friday, we associate ourselves with the suggestion that the House should meet at noon on that day and adjourn its business at four o'clock. I must say, however, regarding the statement of the business the Prime Minister proposes to take, I have in front of me the list of Bills that were mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Measures that the Government propose to take. The usual thing on an occasion like this is for the Prime Minister to inform the House what the latest mind of the Government is as regards the business. Only once, I think, has it been tried before, and it is not enough for the Prime Minister to come and say they have got a list of Bills—the Aliens Restriction Bill, the Betting Overseas (Prohibition) Bill, the Colonial Probates (Protected States and Mandated Territories) Bill, and so on—a very long list of Bills, all announced at the end of last Session.
The Prime Minister comes and tells us to-day that the Government have not considered the matter at all. We have been asked to meet for an Autumn Session, not, apparently, to do miscellaneous business, not to do unimportant business, but to do business which is of first-rate importance. The whole theory of the Autumn Session is that. The House has never been called together for an Autumn Session for the purpose of passing second-and third-rate Bills, and I shall protest most strongly, in the name of the Opposition, against our being brought together here to discuss those Bills, when there are matters of infinitely greater importance that ought to be discussed if
the House is going to sit right up to Christmas. The Bills of first-rate importance are the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill, the Cinematograph Films Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Those are the Bills that could quite reasonably be put into a category of work left as incomplete in July and which ought to be dealt with in an Autumn Session. Beyond that, certainly without agreement, the Government, I think, ought not to go. With reference to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, I should like to ask whether the Government have made up their mind as to when that Bill is going to be taken—I do not mean the date, but whether it is to be taken after Eleven o'clock? It is very important that that should not be the case this year. There are important Bills included in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that ought to be discussed before Eleven o'clock, and I hope the Government will make provision for that.
When the Government make their statement, even if it be a satisfactory statement—and I must say the statement to-day has been profoundly unsatisfactory—but even when a satisfactory statement, while it is the business of the Government to get their time, it is the business of the Opposition to get a bargain. If the Prime Minister has not been quite correct, I propose to be quite correct on behalf of the Opposition. There are several questions which we ask opportunities for discussing. First of all, there is the general question of unemployment. We cannot possibly sit here for six or seven weeks and not have a debate upon the general question of unemployment. It is perfectly true that the Bill before us to-morrow and the next day, and then, subsequently, in its Committee stage, deals with unemployment, but that Bill deals with a specific aspect of unemployment, and there is the whole question raised so well by my hon. Friend in his question to-day as to what is going on, what is the general trend of the unemployment problem, how far are we being supplied week by week with pleasant, or comparatively pleasant, figures about unemployment, how far is that being possible only because the unemployed who have been on the Insurance Fund are being steadily elbowed on to the Poor Law rates? There is the question of the pro-
vision for training, especially for youths from 16 to 18. There is the whole question of organising the machinery of the various sections of unemployment, certainly not omitting consideration of the very important point raised by the Noble Lady opposite, namely, the treatment of women in the unemployment scheme. Those things cannot be discussed adequately and freely under the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and this House cannot, for decency sake, possibly sit here for six or seven weeks and not have a discussion upon them.
My second point is this. We must also have a general discussion on the coal situation. The Government last year made certain forecasts, professed certain economic faiths, and made certain prophecies as to what was to happen if certain proposals they were making were to be carried out. We must remind the Government of those prophecies, not simply for the purpose of reminding them, but to get them to face the situation for which they are primarily responsible. We cannot now, of course, discuss these subjects on their merits, but, by way of reinforcing my plea as to the urgency of a discussion on this subject, I myself, in the last fortnight, have been in the mining district. I have had the advantage, the very painful advantage, of discussing the situation with the men and women who are bearing the burdens of the coal industry at this moment, and the case is getting so painful and so distressful, that, repeating the words I have said about unemployment, in decency this House cannot sit here for six or seven weeks and refrain from having a discussion.
In connection with the coal situation there is a very important matter. The Government last year put into the hands of the employers a power which we warned them would be used in such a way as to justify the description of abuse. We have seen systems of boycotting going on; we have seen systems of intimidation, systems of picking out men whose only crime was that they had been selected by their fellows as representatives on deputations and otherwise. It is important that we should be in a position as an Opposition to put strong and severe pressure upon the Government to take upon themselves the responsibility that is theirs
for having given the employers that power, and that we should be able to check the abuse of that power. The whole question of the present situation in the coal industry must be kept free and open, unfettered and untrammeled, and it must be discussed in this House, as well as the business that the Government have selected for primary consideration.
An answer was given to-day by the Prime Minister regarding disarmament discussions at Geneva. I am sure that the Prime Minister was perfectly aware, when he gave that answer, that he had already pledged himself to the House that a day would be given for discussions of the Naval Armaments Conference at Geneva. But that is not enough now. The Eighth Meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations has taken place, and at that Assembly very important speeches were made and very important policies laid down. This House must have an opportunity of discussing those things. There have been certain rumours in circulation. I am not going to put them any higher than that, but nobody who has ever been in the Foreign Office will deny that sometimes a rumour, even if it is baseless, has more effect upon foreign policy than a truth. There have been certain rumours regarding such matters as a grievance between ourselves and other Powers with reference to Tangier. If there is any such policy as that being considered, this House ought to know in what direction Foreign Office policy is going. My plea is that the Prime Minister should look to his pledge. I am sure that he has not the least idea of refusing to fulfil it. The pledge should be fulfilled, the pledge that we shall have a discussion in this House on what is known as the Coolidge Conference, and that in addition we shall have an opportunity of surveying the general trend of foreign policy recently, and certain events which have taken place since we adjourned in the summer.
There is another question, of great importance, I am told, to the people in the textile districts. Perhaps a whole day would not be necessary for it, but it is an important question. I refer to the continued failure of the Government to put into operation the Washington Eight Hours Convention. Those who during the past few months have been
in touch with the cotton and woollen industries all say the same thing, namely, that this question of the ratification of the Washington Convention is now becoming very important and that we must know where we stand. The Government ought to tell us quite definitely, and we want an opportunity of pressing them to tell us quite definitely, are they or are they not going to ratify the Convention? If they are going to ratify it, let them ratify it. If they are not going to ratify it, let them announce the fact to the world and settle the matter once and for all. It is uncertainty which is so bad for business. You can put burdens on business and if business understands precisely what the burdens are, it can adjust itself, but a thing that cannot be done by business is to adjust suspicions and unknown and undisclosed burdens. So far as we are concerned, we shall always be opposed to that. I put that question with the other three questions I have mentioned as calling for discussion.
There are other important questions that may arise. There are many important questions that, in relation to those mentioned, will be called small. We cannot meet here imagining ourselves to be separated from the rest of the world and the rest of the nation. I hope that the Prime Minister will give us the assurance that in arranging the business of the Autumn Session, what are knows as the "usual channels" will be used very liberally and in the most friendly way so that none of the really important questions that have cropped up can escape our attention. As the Government have not done that, and as we are asked to pass this Resolution, without knowing what the Government have in their minds beyond this very large shop window bill that was displayed to us in July—I am sorry it was in my absence, so that I have no personal recollection of it, but I have it here in front of me in black and white—I really cannot agree to a Resolution which puts the Government in absolute control over the whole of the time of the House between now and Christmas.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must also disagree with giving the whole time of the House to the Government, because we have no evidence that they are going to use the time to the benefit of the country. The position as it dis-
closes itself to me is this. We have had published in the Press a full list of the Measures that the Government are to pass, but not one of those Measures will give one day's work to an unemployed workman, with the possible exception of the Cinematograph Films Bill, which those who have made a close study of it tell me is very doubtful in its effect on employment—it is very doubtful if it will assist British trade by finding work for British workmen. Unemployment is the crucial subject to-day. Winter is coming on with its cold and hardships. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am only making a plea for the men who cannot afford new clothes or all the food they want and who are trying to exist on what is called the dole. They will suffer more in winter. Surely hon. Members will agree that their lot is very difficult, and I hope hon. Members opposite will join me in pressing the Government to do something for the unemployed. Before the House rose I made the same protest and I also protested against the length of the Recess. Now that we are reassembled, I think it is disastrous that no scheme has been formulated by the Government during the Recess to deal with unemployment. I see opposite the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon), who has a cure for unemployment. He and his friends contend that British trade will be helped and employment improved by the introduction of tariffs. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) cheers that statement, as he often does. Both those hon. Members think that tariffs should be introduced. Why do they not press that proposal on the Government? Why do they sit there acquiescent, and allow all private time to be taken by the Government when they might bring in their tariff measure?
We have here a huge Conservative majority, including gentlemen like those I have mentioned. Why do they allow the Government to take the whole time of the House when they might bring in their panaceas for distress in business? I shall resist this Motion, and we on this side will be supported by any hon. Gentlemen opposite who have any independence of spirit left after three years of close whipping by their Chief Whip. The Government are proposing to deal with a series of Bills which will not help British trade and will not in any way find
work for the unemployed. That is a waste of the time of the House, and Parliament itself should be allowed to do something on its own account. I can only repeat a suggestion I have made before, that this great question of unemployment should be treated by the Government as a non-party matter. The Government should call a conference of Members of all parties to see what measure could be framed if they fail themselves to table a scheme. The Government should call upon Members of experience in other parts of the House to make suggestions, and so see whether those on the back benches and those who are out of office can help in the matter. Let us see if the House, apart from the Government Front Bench, can help in the solution of the problem. It is the gravest problem facing the people to-day. I shall resist this Motion in the only way open to me by voting against it, and I call on hon. Gentlemen opposite who think as we do on the matter to support us.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only a few observations to make, and I wish, first of all, to thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in calling my attention to the new Rule which is suggested for rendering it unnecessary to introduce Motions of this kind so frequently. As to that, I make only one comment. If a Motion of that kind be incorporated in our Standing Orders, I think there should be some means by which we can review the programme of the Session or of an Autumn Session, whether by means of a Motion for Adjournment or otherwise. It is exceedingly desirable that there should be some means by which the House can review these things. One of the difficulties of Standing Orders and Rules is that very often you can discuss everything in this House except the very thing in which the country is interested. Whatever the Rule is to be, it should not be impossible for the House to have an opportunity of reviewing the business of the Session as a whole. With regard to the programme now before us, I very much regret, with the Leader of the Opposition, that the Prime Minister has not stated definitely that he means to confine the business to two or three out-standing Measures. You have a long
miscellaneous programme of this kind. Nobody knows bettter than the Chief Whip that it is always rather calculated to retard—I hardly like to use the word obstruct, because it has a technical meaning—but such a programme does retard the business that the House has to complete.
Here you have nine or ten or more Bills, some of them very small or insignificant, but some of them highly contentious. I will mention one which is particularly applicable to Wales, the Welsh Church (Burial Grounds) Bill. That will encounter very serious resistance and will help to interfere with other business. Members have the knowledge that if they expedite one particular Bill, it will afford an opportunity for the Government to get more time to put through another Bill. From a long experience of the House of Commons, both in Opposition and in trying to get Bills through when sitting on the Bench opposite, I should have thought it was the height of folly to put in provocative little Bills like that, which make Members take a greater interest than they ought to take in other Bills that the Government want to get through. I very respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who is his special adviser upon the business of the House, that it would be very much better if they were to state definitely that the Government do not propose to put through these little so-called "non-contentious" Bills, which are not very important from many points of view, but are very provocative, very irritating, and are exactly the kind of business for which a Government, if I may say so, has no right to have an Autumn Session. I do not think they have a right to put this particular Bill through at all. As I shall point out, it is a gross breach of faith, but I cannot go into the merits, now. I only want to say that it is distinctly the kind of Measure which ought not to be introduced during an Autumn Session, and I think that remark applies to two or three other Bills.
I sincerely trust the Prime Minister will give us assurances early, that if this Bill is really contentious—and I can assure him upon that subject—he does not propose to take up the time of the
House with it. What makes it all the more unfair is that there is no provision here for discussing matters of real importance and gravity. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition that there are two or three questions which the House of Commons, representing all interests in the nation, ought not to part with during an Autumn Session without thorough and searching review and examination. There is the question, for instance, of the very grave state of the coal industry. I know something of the circumstances in our part of the world, and I am sure it is equally bad in Durham and other districts. The House of Commons ought not to separate during the winter without discussing these facts. Then there is the question of the textile industry and also the very serious condition of agriculture. It is inconceivable that we should separate without having a full Debate upon the conditions of agriculture. Everybody tells me that the cultivators of the land, the farmers, have not been in a worse state, probably, since the bad winter of 1879. Is it possible for the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to make provision for at least one day's discussion upon that subject? My plea—and I make it in sitting down—is that the Prime Minister should eliminate, either publicly or by private assurance through the usual channels, these little contentious Measures which will not merely take time to discuss in themselves, but will provide an incentive for Members of the House of Commons to take time in the discussion of other matters as well.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition referred to the important question of Scotland. As a Scottish Member I feel it necessary at this time to urge that question upon the House. An hon. Member for the Scottish Universities, who is a Member of the Government party, has pointed out in very emphatic fashion that Scotland is undergoing decay, and when notice is taken of that fact from the Conservative Benches one may be sure that the condition of Scotland is exceedingly bad. We are proposing by this Motion to take up all the time of private Members and, unfortunately, the great question of Scotland's urgent needs has hitherto only been brought to the attention of the House by means of private Members' Bills, that
being the only opportunity of doing so. This Session, unfortunately, we have had very little time in which to consider the situation in Scotland. I do not know whether the Prime Minister during his recent visit to Scotland was in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the statistics concerning emigration from Scotland. The situation in that respect is being intensified, and five times the number of emigrants are being forced to leave Scotland that are leaving England. Many of the questions referred to by the Leader of the Opposition should undoubtedly receive more careful attention, and drastic measures ought to be taken to grapple with the difficulties of Scotland in these various connections.
I feel it necessary to urge that this matter should be pressed by the Opposition, and particularly by that section of it which represents Scotland. If Scotland and her concerns are to get requisite attention, and if we are to have the driving power that is necessary to set Scotland in her rightful position, it is esential for every Scottish Member to join in bringing home, not only to the present Government, but to their own parties the necessity for putting these matters properly before the House on every possible occasion. This is not a question for consideration during a Debate of three quarters of an hour on a Private Member's Bill, while the Secretary of State for Scotland pays no attention to those who are bringing forward and supporting the private Member's Bill. I maintain that such treatment for Scotland is not proper, and that the present situation in that respect requires to be changed at the earliest possible moment. If there is not to be an opportunity during this concluding part of the Session for doing so, I appeal—although my appeal may fall upon very dull ears—to the Government that in the next Session, if they have no proposals of their own to make, they should afford special facilities for Scotland's interests being advanced in the way I have indicated.

Captain GARRO-JONES: This is a Motion to take the time of private Members, and I think it is rather unbecoming that, out of more than 400 private Members on the other side of the House, not one has been found to raise his voice in protest against it. It is not as if this
were the first time the rights of private Members have been assailed. So long as I have been in this House, and that is for nearly three years—[Laughter.] It is not a long time, I admit, but it has enabled me to see how, one by one, the rights of private Members are being frittered away. We had an example only to-day at Question Time. A back-bench Member addressed a Question to the Under-Secretary of State for India. That Question was passed over, in order that a Front Bench Member, later on and at no snore convenient stage, might put the same Question. The same tendency is to be found in the length of time allotted to speeches. Even on this particular Motion, which involves the rights of private Members, Front Bench Members get priority and speak for a considerably longer time than private Members on the subject. All these indications show that private Members ought to take steps to secure that these little privileges are not, one by one, taken away from us. I think it was Gladstone who said—[Laughter.] Well, some of the old platitudes uttered by great Parliamentarians in days gone by lose none of their force as time goes. on, and Gladstone said he would not stay in this House for an hour if every hon. Member of it had not the same status in his representative capacity. That status is in danger of being lost, and it is not for the benefit of the country that such a tendency should exist. In my submission if the power of nominating the programme of Parliament, day by day and week by week, rests with the Executive, the interests of the country are not properly served. We have only to look at the Order Paper to-day to see that when the Executive is able to nominate the programme, we get—if I may say so without offence to the particular interests concerned—such pettifogging Measures as the Welsh Church Bill or the Local Authorities Bill, while the Prime Minister tells us that he has not got time, or has not been able to arrange, for the discussion of armaments, and there are also such great public questions as agriculture and coal. The Executive to-day is putting down on the Order Paper, not questions the discussion of which would be for the benefit of the country, but questions which will avoid embarrasment to themselves. It would be more becoming if hon. Members opposite, instead of voting
for this Motion like sheep, were to utter their protest before allowing it to pass.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to make two points in connection with this Motion. I think each time the Prime Minister has to move this Motion he does so with a certain sense of weariness and impatience, but in view of the circumstances of the country I had hoped he would have taken the opportunity of presenting this Motion to-day to give us some idea of what the Government hope to do during this Autumn Session. Instead of such an announcement we have only had a sort of petulant, complaining statement by the Prime Minister expressing the hope that he will not be bothered by this sort of thing in the future. Some of us like to hear the Prime Minister's voice, but I notice a tendency towards outlining the business of this assembly in the public Press rather than in the House of Commons. Instances of leakage have been mentioned to-day, but this Motion gave the Prime Minister a good opportunity of surveying the problems which the Government feel to be pressing and of saying what the Government propose to do in regard to them this Session. I hope the Prime Minister will give due attention to what has been said by the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) concerning the position of affairs in Scotland. On a previous occasion the Prime Minister made a speech with regard to the state of housing in Scotland and the dreadful circumstances prevailing there. That dreadful state of housing continues to exist in Scotland and the Government has not been able to make any great acceleration of its programme of housing in Scotland. I cannot discuss the merits of the question just now, but I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health looks incredulous at my statement I was in tenement property in Glasgow the other day. There were six tenants waiting to get away to other houses. Evidently they could not get away, and they told me they were afraid to go to bed at night in the tenement because of the rats, bugs, and beetles that had taken possession of the place. I do not think the Prime Minister would question the statement that the Scottish housing problem is still a matter of great urgency, and there are other Scottish questions which I hope we may have an opportunity of discussing.
The other matter which I wish to bring before the Prime Minister is in connection with the Representation of the People Act. I put a Supplementary Question to the Prime Minister to-day, and he indicated that no Measure for giving women the vote on the same terms as men would be introduced before Christmas. I think the position is becoming a little uncertain in regard to that matter and I hope the Prime Minister, when replying on this discussion, will make plain what is now the position of the Government concerning this Measure. There are two points in connection with it on which I should like the Prime Minister to give an answer. The first is whether the Government is going to introduce a Measure giving women the vote on the same terms as men during the lifetime of this Parliament? The second is whether they are going to introduce that Measure so that the register will be made up to allow the women to vote in the next Election on the same terms as the men. These questions have been asked before, but I would like to put them once more in the hope of getting a definite reply.

Mr. R. MORRISON: This Debate has been remarkable from the fact that not a single Member from the opposite side of the House has had any opinion to express. I thought the House would excuse me for a moment if I attempted to give the Government an idea of what Members opposite are thinking if they are not saying it. That can be done by looking at their principal newspaper. They are proud of the fact that one of their principal newspapers three years ago was responsible for returning Members with such a majority, and now, three years afterwards, we find that this newspaper puts what I am sure the private Members of the Government are thinking:
A glance at the mass of enactments that are to be rushed to the Statute Book with such relentless determination between now and Christmas is sufficient to convince us that while it, perhaps, embraces nothing positively harmful, it will leave the country not a whit the better off than it was before.
The article goes on to say:
It is said that Satan finds work for idle hands to do. The bureaucrats find legislative work for idle Ministers to do. If the Government was single-mindedly and courageously bent on leaving the nation happier and more prosperous than
it found it, and less obsessed with fear of future strife and thoughts of imminent economic embarrassments than it now is, it would find so much honest work for its hands that no Satanic department would be able successfully to exercise its whispered and serpentile wiles.
I commend this particularly, because I am sure the Government will realise that those Members of the party opposite who have been in recent touch with their constituencies will know it is exactly what the rank and file of the Conservative party are thinking. The article concludes with these two sentences:
So we have a galaxy of Measures dealing with sleepy sickness, with the hours for the sale of tripe, with the dissemination of the dole, with cinemas, and the wearing of red lights on the tails of bicycles. But with the sleepy sickness of tax-bled industry, with the red light of growing international discord, with the tripe that is dressing their political windows, they are not concerned.
[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the paper?"] That paper is being sold in the streets; it is the 6.30 edition of the London "Evening News." I am not sure that the article did not also appear in the most important Conservative morning paper. Surely, in face of the fact that that view represents what thousands of Conservatives are saying and thinking throughout the country, we ought to have some reply from the Government as to whether they have any answer to make to this indictment. The only other point is this: It seems to me somewhat remarkable that nearly eight months ago the Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a great flourish of trumpets, announced that they were going at last to embark on an economy campaign, and that they proposed to abolish the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Mines, and the Department of Overseas Trade. To-day I put a question to the Prime Minister asking if the Government have now decided what its policy is in regard to these three Departments, but we find, eight months after it was announced, that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Transport are carrying on as usual. The Minister of Overseas Trade has been promoted, but his Department is going on as usual. Now the Prime Minister asks me to postpone my question, and wait until a later date when he may be in a position to make a statement. In face of the uncertainty and lack of policy on the part of the Government in these matters, I think
some more definite statement ought to be made. Otherwise, I think this Government is heading direct for trouble in the very near future.

The PRIME MINISTER: In reference to the point made by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), he may remember that an hon. Member on his side, before the House separated for the summer, asked me if I had any statement, and in view of the fact that deputations had been to see me in regard to the future of the Transport Ministry and the Overseas Trade Department, I was asked whether I had received any deputation with regard to the Ministry of Mines. I said I had not, and I was asked whether, if any deputation wanted to come and see me, I would see them, and I replied, "Yes," I have heard nothing further, and I have no doubt that by giving that answer to the hon. Member I might bring upon myself a deputation. But I do remind him of that, and I still hold to the pledge I gave before the House rose.
One point was made by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like very much to get the Standing Order amended before Christmas, but I fear it can only be done by the consent of the House, and it would be a good thing if it were done. If not, we shall have to do it next Session. I should like to consider the point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which is a new point to me. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who is much more fond of asking questions than of reading the answers, put a question to me which had nothing to do with business, and I would refer him to pledges I gave, and to which I hold. They have been given very clearly, if he will look them up. As to the complaints made about the number of Bills which were read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July, I agree there is a large number of them. Quite frankly, I do not expect every one of them to pass into law. All these Bills are labelled with the same words that you will find on a ticket to Calais —"Wind and weather permitting." That is how every Bill comes up in the Autumn Session. Until we can see what proress we can make, it is very difficult, and I may add a little unusual, to be more specific than I have been. The subjects that have been mentioned by the
respective leaders are all subjects which do merit discussion. I cannot pledge myself at this moment to the number of days which it will be possible to spare for these discussions, but I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and ask him to get into touch through the usual channels, and to arrange the utmost that we can do; but I do not think the Opposition really has any cause of complaint with our conduct last year and the year before in affording time for discussion, and we will do the best we can to find time for discussion of the subjects that have been mentioned to-day. There, for the moment, we must leave it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer with regard to the Deposited Prayer Book, and the discussions that will take place on it? Will it take place before Christmas, and will it be taken at a reasonable hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: The present position is that I have given an undertaking that a full Parliamentary day will be given before Christmas.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Home Secretary agree to only one day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is very probable he will speak.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the Home Secretary and Solicitor-General agree?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I think it is very unlikely that there will be general agreement on any time that is to be allotted for that particular purpose. I think I have dealt with the points that have been raised, and I hope the House will see fit to come to a decision on this, because the sooner we can get on with the business the better the opportunity of getting time for other discussions.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the provision made include time for the discussion of necessitous areas? It is a question that is becoming exceedingly acute.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do think that after the speech to which we have listened, some word of protest ought to be said. The Prime Minister is going to give an opportunity, if time is available, to discuss questions which the country
obviously needs us to discuss. There have been vital questions mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—questions of unemployment, the position of the coal trade, the question of disarmament, all these questions, we are told, may be discussed if the Government can find time.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is a little misunderstanding. All I meant was that I cannot say at this moment whether it would be possible to give four or five whole days to these various subjects. I have undertaken that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shall consult the Opposition to see that ample time—it may be disputed what the word "ample" means—will be given to the different subjects which have been enumerated. Beyond that, it is impossible, to go at this moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand that he puts the House in a false position. We want to discuss these questions. We ask adequate time to discuss them, and we want certainly more than one day to discuss the very contentious matter of the alteration of the Church of England Prayer Book. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You can have the time if you will not talk about other things." I have been spending my time in drafting 200 Amendments to the Films Bill. It will need some discussion. Then the right hon. Gentleman puts this pistol at our heads—"Either you are to give us our Bills without discussion, or you will not be allowed to discuss the matters you want to discuss." We shall have the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury coming round to his opposite number on this side of the House and saying, "Now look here, we will give you your days for debate on all these questions if you will only lock your Members up and prevent them from talking on other Bills." We are not going to be locked up and prevented from talking on Bills of this sort, and it is not fair to put the House in the position that they have got to swallow, without debate, legislation which is very contentious, in order to provide opportunities for discussing matters which universally desire discussion. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury see that the Ministers in charge of these contentious Bills will be reasonable and open to compromise? 5.0 p.m.
Compromise is not obtainable unless those Ministers know that reasonable conduct on their part is desirable in the interests of the conduct of business. The Government have met me very fairly up to now over the Mental Deficiency Bill. There, a compromise is being proposed which, I hope, will be effective. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, in order to provide us adequate discussion, press upon the Ministers concerned, particularly upon the President of the Board of Trade, the need of some compromise on a Measure which, otherwise, will take the whole time of this House up till Christmas?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not sure that this is the most appropriate occasion, but I am assuming that it is, to raise a protest, neither am I sure that my protest will be agreed to by everybody on this side of the House. In the speeches so far made on behalf of the Government, we have had a great deal said about finding time in order to do the work of the country, and the purpose of the Motion now before us is to deprive private Members of any further time between now and Christmas for the representation of their constituencies directly. I think it is time to make a protest against this farce of pretending to govern the country by disfranchising the country for very nearly five months out of the year. We come back here after a holiday of something like three months, and we are invited to departmentalise our time between now and Christmas, in order that certain things can be done to get the business through. If the House of Commons and its Members were in earnest about the problems which they are supposed to be here to solve, they would find business to do for every week of the year right throughout the year, without having these long holidays and then coming back and crying about lack of time.
As a private Member, I protest against the policy of taking away the best opportunity that constituencies have of direct representation. There are hundreds upon hundreds of questions which are not questions of State or questions that can be left to the Departments to deal with, but questions of great urgency that come up spontaneously from time to time, that ought to be ventilated in the House
of Commons and for discussing which the House of Commons ought to have a prompt opportunity. It is not possible for that to be obtained under present circumstances, and I take this opportunity of entering my protest against this farce, this playing at politics, for that is what it is. The problems to be dealt with in this country are simply appalling—problems like those of poverty, the slums, overcrowding, unemployment, questions affecting the life and vitality and future of the whole country—yet

we go away for three months' holiday and then come back and say that we have not a minute of time in which to deal with these questions. As a private Member, I enter this protest.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the Government say anything about Scotland's decay, or is Scotland only worthy of being passed over, without remark?

Question put.

The House divided; Ayes, 269; Noes, 138.

Division No. 314.]
AYES.
[5.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkinson, A.(Lancaster, Mossley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)


Balniel, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Drewe, C.
Huntingfield, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H.(Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ellis, R. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Berry, Sir George
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Blundell, F. N.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. Q.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Forrest, W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Long, Major Eric


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ganzonl, Sir John
Looker, Herbert William


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Briscoe, Richard George
Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, L. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacIntyre, I.


Buchan, John
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
McLean, Major A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bullock, Captain M.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Malone, Major P. B.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Campbell, E. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hacking. Captain Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, F. B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Clayton, G. C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Colman, N. C. D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Couper, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sandon, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Pennefather, Sir John
Savory, S. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Penny, Frederick George
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Perring, Sir William George
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shepperson, E. W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Pilcher, G.
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Dr. T.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Wells, S. R.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Preston, William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Radford, E. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remnant, Sir James
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Withers, John James


Rentoul, G. S.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Womersley, W. J.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chts'y)
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Ropner, Major L.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rye, F. G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Salmon, Major I.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tinne, J. A.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Slr Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman,Rt. Hon. Charles W
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Macklnder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Morris, R H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.
Young, Robert Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sexton, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

Ordered,
That during the remainder of the Session—
(1) Government Business do have precedence;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;
(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give additional powers to Parliament as to Measures passed by the Church of England Assembly.
When the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act was introduced into the House of Commons I was one of the principal supporters of that Measure throughout its passage through Parliament. My name was on the back of the Bill, and I was a member of the committee which supported the Bill throughout its course in Parliament. But I think no one who has studied what has happened during the eight or nine years since that Bill passed into law will say that everything has been quite satisfactory. I have taken the trouble to refresh my memory with the speech made during those Debates by Viscount Cecil, who was then Lord Robert Cecil and Member for Hitchin. The whole basis of his speech then was that the object of that legislation was to cure abuses in the Church of England, and he laid great stress upon the sale of advowsons; but not one of the abuses to which he referred has been removed.
I do not mind admitting that the real reason why I am introducing this Bill is that at the end of the last Session of Parliament—as at the present moment—I felt very strongly on the question of the deposited Prayer Book; but since
then other cases have come to my notice where action has been taken by the Church of England Assembly touching matters only remotely connected with the Church of England but seriously affecting the constitutional rights of the people of this country; and it seems to me that by the powers under this Act we are doing the very same thing which Lord Hewart condemned so strongly a short time ago in the course of a speech—we are attempting legislation by administrative action. It may be said of any legislation passed by this House that eventually there must follow a General Election, and that if there is a change of Government after that General Election the legislation can be changed; but in the case of the Church of England Assembly there is no such General Election, and the chance of appeal is exceedingly remote, even though the majority of the people are opposed to any action it takes. The Act gives the House of Commons very minute control, and though I do not desire by the Bill which I am now introducing to restore the control possessed by the House of Commons before that Act was passed, I do desire to give the House of Commons more power than it has at the present time. The powers of Parliament as defined in that Act are very indefinite; it is very doubtful what really are the powers of Parliament under it. The House of Lords, I am informed, has a procedure under which it can put forward a reasoned Motion for the rejection of any Measure passed by the Church of England Assembly, whereas Mr. Speaker has ruled that the House of Commons must vote either for the acceptance or rejection of any Measure and is not entitled to express the reasons for the decision.
In the next few days the House of Commons has got to face, I venture to say, as grave and as serious an issue on the deposited Prayer Book as can well be imagined, and I venture to say not one Member of the House of Commons will like the vote which he is going to give on that particular subject. Whether he votes for it or against it, as I am going to vote against it—whatever his vote may be, he must dislike it. I shall dislike voting against a Measure with nine-tenths of which I am in hearty agreement simply because there is one-tenth of it which I dis-
like, and I think the Bill I am putting forward to amend that Act provides the way out of a very serious difficulty. The Bill defines the power of Parliament in more definite language and will enable the House of Commons to make a reasoned rejection of that Measure or any other Measure which comes from the Church of England Assembly, and enable it to state the reasons why it is taking a particular line of action. The Bill would also enable the House of Commons to declare what portion of a particular Measure it is prepared to pass. I sincerely hope the Government will give time for consideration of this Bill before the question of the Prayer Book comes up for decision.

Major BIRCHALL: I rise to oppose this Motion. It is hardly right, I think, that the House should be asked to vote in favour of it without realising what the Bill means. It is quite true that under the powers which have been given to the Church of England Assembly the House of Commons has voluntarily foregone the right to propose amendments to any Measure which is submitted to it, and it is quite natural that Members should wish to propose amendments and should feel aggrieved when a Measure comes before them which they are unable to amend, and can only vote either for or against it. A moment's consideration will, I think, justify that position. The object of the Act passed some seven or eight years ago was to give the Church of England certain powers of self-government, subject only to the final veto of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If the proposal made by my hon. Friend were carried, it would mean that the House of Commons would have the right

of amending the Measures sent up from the Assembly. What would happen? If an amendment were proposed to a Measure submitted by the Church of England Assembly, that Measure, with the amendment, could not be passed until it had gone back to the Church of England Assembly for approval, and it would have to pass through all the stages in the Assembly before it could be presented to Parliament again. Then it could be further amended by the House, and again it would have to go back to the Assembly, and I am afraid the result of such a procedure would be that we should be reduced to the state we were in before the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act was passed, when practically no Church legislation could get through—none of the great reforms which we desire to see in the Church could be accomplished because of the enormous amount of work the House of Commons has to do and its utter inability to give time to the consideration of such matters. I hope, therefore, the House will not go back on what it did seven or eight years ago, and will not pass this Motion. May I, in a final word, correct the statement of the hon. Member that there is a difference between the procedure in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons? That is not so. In both cases a simple resolution of assent is moved, and the vote is for or against it. There is no power in either House to amend the Measures.

Question put,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give additional powers to Parliament as to Measures passed by the Church of England Assembly."

The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 226.

Division No. 315.]
AYES.
[5.27 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iliffe, Slr Edward M.


Astor, Viscountess
Crooke, J. Smedley Deritend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Baker, Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Day, Colonel Harry
Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(I. of W.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Barks, Newb'y)
Drewe, C.
McLean. Major A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Caine, Gordon Hall
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Grace, John
Morris, R. H.


Christie, J. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nuttall, Ellis


Olayton, G. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Connolly, M
Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rye, F. G.
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sandon, Lord
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Womersley, W. J.


Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)
Tinne, J. A.



Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Remer and Dr. Watts.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oliver, George Harold


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Groves, T.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Grundy, T. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guest,Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Pilcher, G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potts, John S.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Remnant, Sir James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Rantoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briant, Frank
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson,J.


Broad, F. A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bromley, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Ropner, Major L.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hayes. John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C.M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan, John
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hirst, G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. Hackney, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clowes, S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Compton, Joseph
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lamb, J. Q.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Dalton. Hugh
Lawson, John James
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lee, F.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Loder. I. de V.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowth, T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Stephen, Campbell


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sullivan, Joseph


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sutton, J. E.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
March, S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maxton, James
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fenby, T. D.
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tinker, John Joseph


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Comn. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gates, Percy
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Glyn, Major R. G. C
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Westwood, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wright, W


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Mafor Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Whiteley, W.
Windsor, Walter



Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Major Birchall and Mr. Charleton

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1 (Tenant's rights to compensation for improvements).

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out from the word "manner" in line 13 to the word "be" in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words
"(a) in the case of a tenancy terminated by notice within one month after the notice was sent or received by the tenant; and
(b) in any other case not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve months before the termination of the tenancy."

Sir WILLIAM BULL: I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether there is any precedent for putting down on the Order Paper a Bill of first-rate importance on the first day of meeting after the Adjournment, which has the effect of ruling out all the new Clauses. In consequence of the course taken by the Government, no new Clauses can be considered. I would like to know if there is any precedent for such a procedure. Today we have five hours in which to discuss the Bill. A large number of Amendments have to be inserted, and I know that a certain number of Amendments have been put down, by the courtesy of the Home Secretary, up to a certain hour on Wednesday. I do not think that, in regard to a Bill of such first-class importance as this Measure undoubtedly is, the moving of new Clauses should be entirely cut out in this way.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This question has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman without giving me any notice, and I cannot say off-hand whether there is any precedent for a Bill of this kind being put down for consideration on the first day after the Recess. The rules are that notice must be given of New Clauses on the Report stage of a Bill, that is to say, they must appear on the Order Paper the day before the Debate comes on in the House. The Report stage has been put down for the first day after the
resumption of business, and as the Committee stage of this Measure was only completed in the last few days of the Session before the Adjournment, it has made it almost impossible to put down Notices at all.

Sir W. BULL: Of course, we could not put down any new Clauses this afternoon, and now we are precluded from doing so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I quite realise that that is so, because they would have to appear on the Order Paper.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry, so far as I am concerned, for what has happened, but I have had no hand in this matter. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the business is arranged by other Members of the Government, and it is my duty to proceed in this way. As my right hon. Friend knows, if I could have done anything to meet him in this matter I would have done so. I have issued a White Paper containing these Amendments. I know there are a few more Amendments which came in last night, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow every latitude to hon. Members who have sent in Amendments.
I do not propose to occupy much time in proposing this Amendment. It is a very simple one. If hon. Members will look at the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee, they will see that it has been largely developed, and I think improved. Concessions have been made on both sides, and it is now a much larger Bill than it was when it was first introduced. Under Clause 1, dealing with compensation for goodwill, a certain period of notice has to be given, while in the provision relating to compensation for improvements another period of notice has to be given. I think hon. Members will realise that when a tenant, who may be going to claim compensation for improvements and also compensation for goodwill, has to give notice, it is inconvenient that he should have to put in a different kind of notice in each case. All we do by this Amendment to Clause 1 is that we put compensation for improvements into line with the provision in Clause 4 relating to compensation for goodwill. If the House accepts this Amendment, the result will be that the tenant who desires to apply to the landlord or to the tribunal for compensation both for improvements and goodwill will not have to worry about there being two
different days for these notices, and he will be able to put both notices in on the same day or include them in the same notice.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: So far as I know, on this side of the House we agree that it is satisfactory that the two notices should be for the same period.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I would like to ask the Home Secretary what is meant in this case by the word "sent."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a comprehensive word which covers the arrangement made under Clause 22.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I understand that the tenant has three months within which to lodge his claim. If we accept this Amendment that period will be reduced to a month. In that case, I think the tenant will get the worst of the arrangement.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Bill as it stands, he will see that the tenant's claim has to be made in the prescribed manner, and not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy. My Amendment applies either to a yearly tenant or a monthly tenant, and it does not apply until he has received or given one month's notice. Under the Bill, the tenant could not give three months' notice before the termination of the tenancy, because it could be terminated at a month's notice. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have provided for the tenant at short notice, and also for the tenant who holds a lease.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman knew something about these matters when the Bill was going through Committee, and that at that stage he intended the Bill as it is now drafted to become an Act of Parliament; and it must have been obvious to him that the tenant who only has to give a 'month's notice could not, before the expiry of the tenancy, give three months' notice. What, then, was in the mind of the Government when the Bill was drafted and presented to us, and what has been the change of mind on the part of the Government which makes necessary the provisions proposed in this Amendment?

Sir GERALD HOHLER: Am I not right in thinking that Clause 1 does not
refer to a yearly tenancy at all, but only to a longer term? If that be so, the result of this Amendment would be to extend the Clause. If my recollection be right—it is some time since we discussed the matter—and if the notice has to be given at least three months before the termination of the tenancy, it cannot apply to a yearly tenancy. My recollection is that it was not intended to apply to a yearly tenancy, or was only intended, as indicated later, to apply to a yearly tenancy under certain conditions. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has forgotten that. At any rate, I should like him to explain how it comes about that the Clause is now to be applied to a yearly tenancy. I rather think that the drafting of the proposed Amendment is inappropriate. With regard to these Amendments generally, I have to complain that, while this one has been printed on the Order Paper, others have not, which is exceedingly inconvenient. One wanted to consider the Bill with reference to the several Amendments that have been put down. In my view, it was never considered or contemplated. when the Bill was in Committee, that it referred to a yearly tenancy, but only to a tenancy for a longer period.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "or," and to insert instead thereof the word "nor."
This Amendment is intended to make clear, and not to alter in any way, the ordinary provisions of the Bill. We have always understood that the intention of the Bill, as defined by the Home Secretary in Committee, was to provide that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement should exceed neither the value of the holding as increased by the improvement nor the amount that it would cost to make the improvement itself at the end of the tenancy, minus the cost of any necessary repairs. I understood that it was felt, especially by those who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, that to make this intention clear the word "nor" should be used, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that such is the case. May I say, inasmuch as this is the first of a number of Amendments which I have put down, that both this and the other Amendments which I propose to move are within the fabric of the
Bill as it left the Committee? As we spent three months upstairs in thrashing out all the details, with concessions on both sides, in order to produce what I think is a fairly workable Measure, it would be undesirable to attempt to fight our Committee battles again, either on one side or the other. Neither this Amendment nor any of the others that I propose to move is of that character. They are merely designed to make clear what was the intention of the Bill as it left the Committee. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the word "nor" is the correct word in the circumstances.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a very small point, and I do not think my hon. Friend has quite got the grammar correctly even now. If he had wished to say that neither (a) nor (b) should be exceeded, that would be correct. I am, however, quite willing to accept the Amendment, and if it requires alteration it can be put right in another place.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I accept that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to lodge a protest against the time of the House being used up in this frivolous fashion in discussing whether a word shall be "or" or "nor." I think the day ought to be past when we, as Labour Members, sent here, at a time when tens of thousands of our people are up against it, for the definite purpose of trying to change all this, should have to sit and listen to Knights of the British Empire and Cabinet Ministers using up our time in discussing whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall form part of a Clause. I want to draw attention to what is really going on in regard to this Bill. Here we are discussing landlords and tenants. What is going on in the country? I have been all over Britain during—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only question before the House is whether the word referred to shall be "or" or "nor."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I assure you I am speaking on this Amendment—on the question of the grammar and the geography of the situation. I was going to bring that in, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought
in the grammar. It has a bearing on the tenant and the landlord. What is affecting us here, and what we have been sent here for, is to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the tenants in this country are not able to pay the rents. There have been increased rents—[Interruption].

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not seem to be in order now. The question whether the word shall be "or" or "nor" is not really affected by it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am keeping to the Amendment, and, if you will bear with me, Sir, for about five minutes, I will not take up any more of the time of the House. Otherwise, I may take up one or two hours. I was saying that what interests us whenever tenants and landlords are mentioned is not whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall be used in our phraseology, but the fact that there have been great reductions of wages as far as the workers are concerned, and that they are not able to pay the rents. It was this House of Commons that increased the rents—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall be inserted in this place. That is the question before the House; the other questions to which the hon. Member is referring are not before the House at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all due respect to you, Sir, my point is to try and show that the working class have not the wages to pay the rents, that they have not the money to go to the shops, and hence the shopkeepers are not able to carry on—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows very well that that does not arise on this Amendment. This is merely a grammatical Amendment on the question whether the word shall be "or" or "nor." It is a very small point. If the hon. Member continually disobeys my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think there is another reason why the Government should be opposed here. It was stated with some force from the Government side of the House that it is quite im-
possible to discuss these Amendments intelligently unless we have all the Amendments before us, because we may accept one Amendment without knowing knowing its place in the scheme of things contemplated by the Government. I think the House was entitled to a little more than a semi-apology from the Home Secretary for the fact that Amendments sent in a week ago have not been printed, and I am going to oppose this Amendment, if for no other reason, in order to enter my protest against the way in which the House has been treated by the Government. I do not know what the effect on the Bill will be; it is impossible to discuss Amendments that are in manuscript. We ought to have them here, and, if the Government found that the Amendments could not be printed in time for to-day, they ought to have rearranged the business. They control this House, and it is no use the Home Secretary throwing it on to the Chief Whip and saying, "I am only the messenger-boy of the Government, and have been sent here to do as I am told; do not blame me." That is not good enough. We all know the humility of the right hon. Gentleman, but we know that, if he had pressed for the rights of this House to be respected with the same energy with which he can press his views in other directions, the House would have been better treated. Amendments that have been proposed ought to be in print, and the House ought not to proceed to pass any of these Amendments until it finds what the total effect of all the Amendments will be. Therefore, I am going to oppose this Amendment as a protest.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I put the point that it is hardly worth while spending a quarter of an hour of the time of the House in dividing as to whether we should or should not insert a word which makes this Clause entirely ungrammatical? I appeal to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) to withdraw his Amendment. The wording is perfectly grammatical as it is, and it would be ungrammatical if his Amendment were carried.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Sir P. PILDITCH: I understand that my right hon. Friend would like to reconsider this particular Amendment in the form in which it is put down, with a view, possibly, to it being dealt with in another place, and, in these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No! Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
or
(c) the amount of the loss at the termination of the tenancy sustained by the tenant.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent the tenant from obtaining a profit by way of compensation for an improvement which he has made. If the House will refer to the proviso to Clause 1, they will see that it expressly provides that
the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed—
(a) the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement; or
(b) the reasonable cost of carrying out the improvement at the termination of the tenancy, subject to a deduction of an amount equal to the cost (if any) of putting the works constituting the improvement into a reasonable state of repair except so far as such cost is covered by the liability of the tenant under any covenant or agreement as to the repair of the premises. 6.0 p.m.
To this I want to make the addition set out in my Amendment. I would like to remind the House that in English law there can be no compensation without loss or damage. If, therefore, the landlord is able to prove at the termination of the tenancy that the tenant has, in fact, suffered no loss whatever in carrying out the improvement, but, instead, has got back his money and possibly a profit on it, then I venture to suggest to the House that there can be no question of compensation. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will tell us that there is no reason why the landlord should get an improvement for nothing, but the real point here is, as the Bill was put to the
House on the Second Reading,. that the landlord should not be allowed to take advantage of the tenant and rob him of his improvement and, according to the later part of the Bill, of his goodwill. The tenant has made his money, or got back his money. It will not be a question of robbing him at all. He will have had the full advantage of his improvement and there is no reason, to my thinking, why the landlord, who, after all, is the owner of the house, should not take it over.

Mr. GATES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think this provision might very fairly be inserted as a third proviso. It may very well be the fact that the tenant, after making an improvement 10 or 20 years before the expiration of his tenancy, may make a considerable sum of money. He may spend £1,900 and may reap an advantage of £2,000, or even £5,000, and he is therefore in no way damnified, and it is only fair that the landlord should not be liable to pay compensation.

Mr. MacLAREN: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment. It is definitely laid down in paragraph (a) "the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value," with the alternative proviso of the cost of carrying out such improvement. It might possibly be construed that, irrespective of what may be termed the capitalised value of the addition to the letting value, something less than that was actually due to the tenant. Let us be frank about this. If the tenant makes an improvement he has as much right to make what profit he can out of it as the landowner has to make a profit out of the tenant, and if we are going to adopt this Amendment we are going to have prolonged discussion and inquiry as to what exactly was the net loss or the net gain of the improvement so effected. I hope the House will expedite the passage of the Bill, because while not agreeing with everything in it, some of us are anxious that it should pass as quickly as possible. The Sub-sections as they stand are definite and clear and will not lead to the complications to which this Amendment undoubtedly would lead and
give a bias in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. I take it this Bill is to hold an even poise between the two, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps it will be convenient if I state the view of the Government at once on the Amendment, which is that it is against the whole intention of the Bill. When a tenant makes an improvement, with the consent of the landlord or of an independent tribunal, the whole question is whether at the end of the tenancy the landlord should take over an improvement which is of value to the landlord. That is the scope and the intention of the Bill. We have not considered either the loss or the gain to the tenant. In exactly the same way, when we come to deal with compensation we are against the tenant's view in that respect. We are not proposing to make the landlord pay by way of compensation for goodwill any loss the tenant has incurred. We are only saying the landlord shall pay to the tenant for the benefit he takes when he takes over a going business which belongs to the tenant. The two things are exactly on the same basis. This is exactly the practice under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and tenant farmers are compensated at the end of their tenancy exactly on the lines laid down in this Bill. The landlord has to pay to the tenant, irrespective of the loss or gain the tenant may have made, the value of the improvement at the time the tenancy comes to an end and the landlord takes it over. That is the law of the land today in regard to every agricultural holding. All we suggest is that we should give the town tenant of business premises compensation on exactly the same basis as it has been given by Conservative Governments in times past in regard to agricultural land.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask whether this applies to Scotland.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Sir G. HOHLER: I think the Home Secretary is inaccurate with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Acts. I have read them on many occasions. My recollection is that his statement is only in a limited sense true. There are cer-
tain improvements which may be made with consent and certain others which may not. Under this Bill no consent of the landlord is required at all, but the tenant can apply to a tribunal and the landlord is bound by its decision. In other words there are no improvements to which the landlord can dissent, as he can under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Repairs which are obviously useful for the agricultural industry are scheduled in those Acts as repairs which can be done by the tenant without any consent. It is quite a different thing to say, as this Bill says, that everything, whether done with the landlord's consent or not, is to be compensated. In regard to the Amendment, I quite realise, and I expect my hon. Friend realises, that in this House he has no chance of doing anything without derision. I know quite well the attitude taken by the members of the Labour party in the Committee. On one occasion they promised support and they ran away. I do not rely on them now and I never did. I certainly think the Amendment is one that might reasonably be considered. If the tenant has sustained no loss I fail to understand why he should receive anything. If he has sustained loss, surely that should be the measure of what he should receive. Why should we give him more? I do not see the fairness of it between man and man. It is only because it is possible to use harsh and unjust words in regard to landlords, it seems to me, that this is really opposed. I should have thought the Home Secretary would say the Amendment seems fair. The tenant will recover any loss he has sustained, but nothing more. Take the case of a disappearing industry. A smithy is closed down and the tenant gives up his tenancy, not that the landlord has done anything but because there has been an entire change in industry, everything has become mechanical and his trade is dead. He may have built a new forge which is quite useless to the landlord. The landlord will merely have to pull it down. In those circumstances what loss has the tenant sustained?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I was put down just before you came in, Mr. Speaker, because I was not keeping to the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no more point than the man in the moon.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Chair.

Sir G. HOHLER: I was putting a point that might arise in other industries. It is occurring in harness making. In the case I was citing, the amount of the tenant's loss is nothing, because he is unable to go on. It has already disappeared and the landlord gets nothing. I therefore submit it is very reasonable that this additional limitation should be put in that the amount the tenant should recover should be no more than the loss he has sustained.

Mr. WHEATLEY: We have listened to a very able and learned speech, but our difficulty is to take the supporters of the Amendment seriously. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that Labour Members upstairs promised support, but when it came to the critical moment they ran away. I suppose we are to assume that he is of sturdier calibre and has no intention of running away from this Amendment. But our experience to-day has been that, with a limited amount of time at our disposal and a large amount of business to be got through between now and turkey time, Member after Member on the Government side is getting up, moving Amendments, making long speeches, explaining why they should be accepted and then running away from Amendments which have only been used to waste the time of the House. I do not agree with the Amendment, but I should have more respect for it if I thought it was going to have any support given to it in the Division Lobby. If there is to be no support I must protest against this wilful waste of valuable time by supporters of the Government. The proposal in the Amendment is that the tenant having spent a certain sum of money in the improvement of the property will not be entitled to have any of that money returned to him if it can be proved by the landlord, when the lease expires, that he has already had his money back. How are you to analyse the profit made in a building and say how much of it is to be allocated to the improvement and how much to the original property?

Mr. RYE: Might I interrupt the right hon. Member? This might be a case of an improvement not wholly required for
the purpose of the business carried on. Part of the building might be sub-let, as frequently occurs in parts of business premises, and it would then be quite easy to ascertain the additional profit obtained and the actual profit made by the tenant out of such letting.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I thank the hon. Member for that correction, but I respectfully submit that if the expenditure was of no assistance to the business, it was not an improvement and should not come within the provisions of this Measure at all. We are assuming here that we are dealing with improvements of property. We are asked to believe that when a tenant spends, say, £1,000 in making an addition to the property during the period of his lease, the landlord has only to take him to Court at the end of his lease and say, "Old man, you have done very well out of the business from the £1,000 invested, and I am going to prove to the Court you have had your £1,000 back." But you do not find the same type of mind saying that a tenant should be entitled to go to the Court at the end of the lease and submit to the Court that the landlord has had in rent during the period of the tenancy the full value of the property. One might be just as reasonable as the other. But they can only see things through landlords' glasses, and they never see a subject through the spectacles of the tenant, even when he happens to be a rich tenant. I am going to oppose the Amendment, but I hope, in view of the statement that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not going to run away like he said the Labour party did upstairs, but is going to give me the privilege of expressing my views of the Amendment which he has so eloquently supported.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
The Amendment which I have the honour to move is in the interests of the tenants. It is proposed by cutting out the Sub-section to remove the limit which is now imposed on the right of the tenant to obtain compensation for improvements made. At the present time, assuming that my Amendment be not accepted,
any wealthy landlord can deprive a hardworking tenant of the results of his improvements. We remember the case of Howard de Walden and Lewis, and many other cases might be cited. In such cases it is quite possible for a wealthy landlord in the position of Lord Howard de Walden to check any claim for compensation under this Bill by merely expressing the intention, or at any rate carrying out the expression of the intention, of pulling down the premises. It is notorious that the greater part of the centre of London is owned by four or five fabulously rich men to whom the value of one lot of premises is a trivial thing in comparison with their total wealth, and it will be quite possible for any tenant who has made himself obnoxious to his landlord to be deprived of the right of compensation under this Bill by the landlord merely saying, "I do not like you. I am going to pull down your premises."

Sir G. HOHLER: Was not the case of Lewis and Howard de Walden one in which the point was a restricted covenant? It struck me that it had nothing to do with this.

Mr. DALTON: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I stated the case of Lewis and Howard de Walden as an example of penalisation of the law, but the penalisation is a different thing from the penalisation with which I am seeking to deal.

Sir G. HOHLER: But in principle.

Mr. DALTON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to state my case I shall be obliged. The intention was to suggest that if such a case were to arise and the tenant were to stand up for his rights, it would be possible, under this Bill as it stands, for justice to be denied the tenant simply because of the caprice of a wealthy man. It was that consideration, as well as other considerations, that led us to put this Amendment on the Paper. There is another point to which I referred, and which I should like to develop. The word "intended" is used here—"In determining the capitalised value," and so forth, "if it is shown that it is intended to demolish the buildings." I suggest that even the carrying out of an expressed intention should not of itself deprive a tenant of the right of compen-
sation. It seems to me quite possible that the interpretation of this Clause, if it gets into the Courts, may be that an expression of intention might debar for a definite time the right of a tenant to compensation. Even if that be not so, the Amendment seems to me to be extremely strong, and, if so, the case is stronger still.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that the Home Secretary has an Amendment, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially." I am dealing with an Amendment proposed to this very Subsection. The result of that will be that the landowner may establish in future not that he intends to demolish property but that he intends to demolish part of it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to press his Amendment. If so, may I say with all respect, he is really making
I support the Amendment not for the reason stated by the hon. Member who has just moved it, but for another reason. In Sub-section (1) there is the condition that there must be an increase in the letting value of the property, but there are two other conditions which vitiate the whole Clause. The first is this: It does not apply to any improvement made before the passing of the Act. Secondly, it does not apply to any improvement effected without the consent either of the landowner or a tribunal, so that in any event the number of cases will be exceedingly small. But in addition to that, Sub-section (2) lays down two further conditions. The first is, there shall be no compensation if it is intended by the landowner to demolish the property, or to use it for a different purpose. Either of these cases can be easily established by a rich landowner against the individual tenant. You must always bear in mind that these things will have to be fought out by an individual tenant, generally not in very good circumstances, and he will have to make out his case and meet the case made by, probably, some of the best-trained minds, not only in the legal world, but also amongst the surveyors and estate agents. He is met, first of all, with this condition. He must have improved the letting value of the property. In other words, he must have added to the wealth of the landowner.
I understand that the Home Secretary has an Amendment, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially." I am dealing with an Amendment proposed to this very Subsection. The result of that will be that the landowner may establish in future not that he intends to demolish property but that he intends to demolish part of it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to press his Amendment. If so, may I say with all respect, he is really making
the Clause valueless. The landlord could say, "I do not intend to demolish altogether, but in part," and the result would be that the tenant could claim no compensation, although he has added very substantially to the letting value of the property. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment and so make the condition of the tenant infinitely worse than it is at present. I can only repeat here what I said on the Second Reading. I thought then it was perfectly valueless. Even after the Committee stage upstairs, notwithstanding the support given to the right hon. Gentleman by the opposition amongst his own friends on the other side, the Bill is not very much improved.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to point out that under Sub-section (2) serious factors can creep in. It is all very well for Members to say that that is a very tight subsection, good grammar, or anything they like to claim for it, but it is when you get down to the practical side of business, as between landlord and tenant, that the difficulties arise. I can see and have always seen that this "intended to demolish" if taken in part, means this. A man may take down some bricks of the chimney and that will be calculated in law, if this Bill stands, as being partial demolition. That course is well known to those who have been at law in such circumstances. But what is more important is that the landlord through this Clause gets a great power. The improvement made by the tenant very often does more than increase the value of the premises improved. It improves the general amenities of the district where the shop is situated. My point is, that this Clause will give the landlord the right to say that the tenant, having spent money upon improvement, has made this district valuable, and has made the property more valuable than it was before the improvement was made. It does not matter whom you wish to compensate, and the tenant who has spent£10 or£10,000 may have recouped himself by improvements, still we have got this to retain in our minds, that, whoever has added to the value, it cannot be the landlord, who has done nothing.
That is the danger in this Clause, and that is why we on this side would like to see the whole thing deleted. The Bill as it stands is a feeble effort on a very serious question in this country, and this
Clause is perhaps the most feeble of all the Clauses in the Bill. The position, as far as the landlord and tenant are concerned regarding improvements, is that to-day the tenant is absolutely at the mercy of the landlord. My experience in London alone, extending over 10 weeks in relation to this subject, has shown me that the landlords are so combined in London that the business man is absolutely at their mercy. There is more than the value that can be calculated on an improvement to a shop front. There are other values that come from the industry of the business man, and the tenant in the landlord's premises, and I regret that the Government, if they are going to deal with the rights of individuals, do not include that which belongs to the value of the individual by his enterprise and industry. This Clause as it stands will not be the Clause that will give trouble to the tribunal. The tribunal will simply take the Clause in its ordinary interpretation, and following that will come the great, long, expensive legal fights in the courts. That will happen, and the landlord will be on top all the time, because the tenant will not be able to meet the great legal costs involved.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On this Amendment I am on the other side of the fence. The remarkable thing is that on whatever side of the fence one may be the argument is the same. This Amendment goes to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to have no regard to questions of the tenant's loss but solely to questions of the gain of the landlord. My hon. Friends who were against me on the last occasion will be with me now, while hon. Members opposite will be against me. The principle really is the same. The landlord is only to pay for the improvement made by the tenant the benefit of which he gets. if the neighbourhood is going to be developed and the building is to be pulled down and, say, a town hall or a bank is to be built, then the improvement made by the tenant, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago, is of no value at all, and the landlord gets no additional benefit from it. In regard to that matter, this Sub-section of the Bill is right.
I should like to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr.
Dalton) with regard to the question of intention. He said that the landlord might change his intention, and then the tenant would get nothing. If the hon. Member will look a little further in the Bill—I give him now information which, with great respect to him, I say that he might have obtained had he read Subsection (3)—he will see that it is clear that the tribunal may authorise a further application for compensation to be made by the tenant if effect to the intention is not given within the time fixed by the tribunal. We have made it fair to both sides and, on the whole, I am satisfied that if hon. Members will take into consideration the principle of the Bill they will see that this Sub-section is quite fair to the tenant. This Sub-section is within the principle of the Bill, therefore it ought to be retained.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think this Clause is framed in such a way as to invite litigation and a great deal of legal trouble with regard to definitions. The Home Secretary says that the purpose of the Bill is definitely to give to the tenant only such advantage in compensation with regard to goodwill and improvements as the landlord himself would be able to take. The landlord will not be pulling down premises or altering premises except for some definite advantage to himself. Take the case mentioned by the Home Secretary as to the possibility of general improvement where a town council was pulling down a house for widening purposes or the erection of a town hall, etc. Under these conditions the compensation which the landlord would get from the town council would be certainly not on the parsimonious side. He would be compensated for the character of the improvement which the municipality was undertaking. Although I understand the point put by the Home Secretary, it seems to me that from the standpoint of justice a tenant who has been for years building up goodwill and improving a particular business is entitled, in all equity, to share in the advantage that may accrue to the landlord from improvements of that character.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to deal with the point made repeatedly by the Home Secretary. He says that the object of the Bill is to prevent the landlord from confiscating the tenant's property. I should have thought that the object of
the Bill would be to protect the tenant. If that was not the object of the Bill, I do not think there was much sense in introducing it. As the Bill was drafted, and if this Sub-section is to be allowed to remain, you are not protecting the tenant. The Bill, as has been repeatedly pointed out, offers very little to the tenant, even at its best, and the Subsection which it is now proposed to leave out provides additional loopholes through which the landlord may escape from his obligation. If you want to protect the tenant, what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend who has just spoken is perfectly sound. A tenant improves property and improves a business. The landlord finds that by selling the property to a bank or the local authority or to any other possible purchaser he can make more out of it than he is getting out of it through a yearly rent. Under this Bill he does not need to have any regard at all for the interests of the tenant. He will only consider himself; he can sell the property to whoever will buy it for a sum that will give him a greater annual return than he is getting as rent.
The mere fact that the building is to be demolished under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament frees the landlord from any obligation to the tenant. I submit to the House that in such a case the reasonable and just rights of the tenant ought to be our first consideration and that we ought to provide that where the landlord finds it more profitable to demolish his property than to allow it to remain as the tenant is using it, the landlord should have to take into account in fixing his price the loss that will accrue to the tenant from the change in the user of the property. I submit, therefore, to the Home Secretary that the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2) is one that should be accepted by any Government which has as its first consideration the protection of the interests of the tenant.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Does the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) really mean that either the landlord or anybody else should be called upon to compensate the tenant for doing something, for making some expenditure, which is of no value to the landlord or to anybody else? That really seems to
be what his speech amounts to. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was not in Committee during the time that this Bill was under consideration. During the whole of that period I do not think the principle of the Bill as far as this question is concerned was ever challenged, namely, that compensation should not be payable where "the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises" after demolition or change of user. I attended every meeting of the Committee and that principle has not been challenged until the right hon. Gentleman challenged it a few minutes ago.
If the tenant makes an improvement to the premises and such improvement does improve the letting value then if the landlord takes that letting value and turns it into money, we are all agreed at this stage of the proceedings that the tenant should be allowed the value. That is an equitable principle. From my recollection, this principle was dealt with in regard to the urban tenants in Ireland in a Bill which passed Parliament. Now, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to turn the whole principle round and to say that whether it is of any value or not any expenditure made by a tenant shall be made the subject of compensation by the person who, under the circumstances described in this Clause, cannot derive any benefit therefrom. The principle point that emerges makes it perfectly clear that the landlord cannot get any benefit from this particular kind of improvement. The question may arise where the building is to be pulled down, in which case, obviously, the improvement will disappear, or where there is to be a change of user, in which case also there would be no benefit to the landlord or to anybody else by the particular improvement which had been made by the tenant. The question as to whether or not it is equitable for a landlord to compensate his tenant for improvements which he has made and which are of benefit to the landlord, is provided for. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in Committee he would have seen that we were anxious to see that justice was done to the tenant in all contingencies whether with regard to improvements, goodwill or otherwise, and I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the Home
Secretary is justified in refusing to accept an Amendment which goes straight against the principle of the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This Bill is supposed to be for the benefit of the tenant but it is not going to benefit the tenant in any way. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) asked the Home Secretary why the tenant should not be compensated for the alterations that he had made, and the Home Secretary in reply said that everybody was going to be compensated because after the removal of a building there would, in all probability, be erected a magnificent building, a bank, or municipal chambers. My point is that the landlord has no right to any increase in the value of that land. It not only does not belong to the landlord and it does not belong to the tenant; the increased value of the land belongs to the whole community. Where a bank is to erected, what is the reason? It is because of the industry of the people who have congregated around the site. In cases where municipal chambers are to be erected, we find that the value of the ground has been created by the industry of the people who surround it, and you have no right to give that value to the landlord; absolutely none. The Home Secretary had no idea that he was opening up such a grave question as far as the Tories are concerned when he raised this point. Once the working classes get a grip of this business it means an end of an Home Secretary such as we have to-day, and it means an end of the Tories in power.

Mr. J. BAKER: In supporting the Amendment I am not asking the Home Secretary to desert any principles announced by him when he introduced this Bill. I want him to carry those principles out, and not weaken the Bill by leaving this Sub-section in it. It has been argued that if a tenant spends money which results in no improvement he, surely, is not entitled to compensation, but this is a case where a tenant spends money which does lead to an improvement, and this Clause would deprive the tenant of any compensation if somebody expressed an intention at some time or other to pull the premises down. There would be something in the argument of the Home Secretary if he restricted the Sub-section to demoli-
tion for public improvements. This Sub-section does not leave it there. The landlord can express an intention to demolish the premises; and there is no definition of what demolition means. Let us take the case of public improvements. On what basis is the landlord going to sell his premises to some other persons or group of persons for demolition or for remodelling, or any other purpose? Surely it is not on the basis of the rent his tenant i5 paying. It would be on the basis of the earning power of the shop as it stands, and that earning power has been increased by the expenditure of the tenant. But we are not deciding that by this Bill. The tribunal would take all these circumstances into consideration in assessing the value of the improvements. The Home Secretary says that if he agrees to withdraw this Sub-section the tribunal would be the authority to decide whether the expenditure of the tenant had resulted in any increased earning power or improvement in the value of the shop. This Bill has been introduced because of what has happened in the City of London quite recently. It is a good thing if a person in business can kill his competitor, not, of course, by murdering him, but by buying up his premises, thus depriving him of his business, then letting the shop for something else, turning a shop which has been selling meat into a shop for selling goods and thus compelling people to come into an adjoining establishment where food is being sold. The person who owns these two establishments may earn more money—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I submit that he is now dealing with the question of compensation for goodwill which arises under Clause 4. I am quite willing to discuss these questions, but I do not want to go over the same ground again on Clause 4.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is somewhat difficult to separate the two subjects. There will be another opportunity on Clause 4 to discuss compensation for goodwill and I hope hon. Members, as far as they can, will deal with the Sub-section we are now discussing.

Mr. BAKER: I hope I am keeping strictly within the limits of the Amend-
ment. This Sub-section says that if it is intended to pull down the property the man has lost his chance of any consideration whatever. That is what I am discussing. It is the case where a person may be carrying on a particular business and he has a competitor. It has nothing whatever to do with goodwill. It is the case of a person occupying a shop. He has to establish, not that he has created goodwill, not that he has attracted a lot of people to that particular shop by advertising or any other way, but that he has improved the premises by capital expenditure, that he has improved their letting and selling value. I maintain that in these circumstances the intention of the landlord or the future use to which these premises may be put should not destroy that man's claim for the increased value he has given to the property by reason of his own personal efforts, because the landlord will get that increased value in the sale of the property to other people. I hope the Home Secretary will withdraw the Sub-section because it really weakens the Bill. The speech he made in introducing the Bill was in the spirit I myself should have approached the question if I had been introducing the Measure, although I should not have expressed it half so well, but as he weakens the Bill by leaving this Sub-section in I hope he will see his way to withdraw it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I believe the Home Secretary, if we had in the Gallery an audience of shop tenants, would agree to the withdrawal of this Sub-section. The Bill is not a very strong Measure. It leaves out people occupying ordinary houses for ordinary domestic purposes and deals only with shop tenants. In this Clause it starts by giving them some hope, but in this Sub-section it takes that hope away. If the people who had to decide this matter were those who are suffering from the injustices of the present system, this Sub-section would go. Is it really necessary? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), who leads the opposition to this Bill, is a strong defender of this Sub-section, and that alone would enlist me in favour of the removal of the Sub-section. He is a strong supporter of this Sub-section because he says that it is perfectly monstrous to allow
a tenant to put up any unprofitable building in his backyard and make the landlord compensate him at the end of his lease. I am afraid tenants have not the capital or the leisure to put up unprofitable buildings. The buildings they put up are such as will assist in the carrying on of their business. We have already passed the words:
Provided that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding as a whole.
If a tenant puts up useless buildings it will not add to the letting value, and there will be no compensation for him. It is only in the case where the building is a valuable addition to the holding that we provide that compensation shall be given. Having provided that compensation shall be limited to something that is useful, you proceed to say, in Sub-section (2), "No, a landlord may find on the conclusion of the lease that he would sooner let the building for something else." That may be a decision after the buildings have been erected for which compensation was expected. A tenant may put up this building, may employ labour, may improve the property and develop the street and the neighbourhood, under the impression that under this Bill he is safeguarded, that he can claim compensation for them, but when the end comes, when he is losing his business and everything else, the landlord may suddenly say, "I know it is true that if these premises were going to remain as they are, you will get compensation, but I do not like to pay you compensation, and I am going to change the nature of the premises and turn them into something else"—a bank or a cinema. He changes his mind after the other party to the contract has spent his money, and you say that the tenant shall have no claim.
Take the case of a public authority which acquire property for a town improvement, the widening of a road or the clearing of a slum, or the making of a children's playground. Why do you not treat a public authority making that compulsory purchase on the same lines? If a public authority pulls down a building, which may not be suitable for the site, it has to pay the last penny of compensation for the full value of that building, and very often a good deal more.
But when you are touching the landlord it is a very different pair of shoes. Then you must provide in your Bill, which is supposed to confer a benefit on the tenant, a Sub-section which takes away all the benefits. There is no certainty of any of the improved value coming to the tenant. I do not look at the Bill solely from the point of view of town tenants, although that is important, but from the point of view of the public. What we want in this country is more work—I mean useful work, not useless work. We want these buildings put up. We want every tenant to have an incentive to put up new premises, to increase his premises and to employ labour in so doing. I want him to escape rates if he improves his premises; but, at any rate, do not let him feel that by spending money on improving his premises he is absolutely throwing his money into the sewer, as is the case now. He knows that if there are only seven years of his lease to run he must pay himself back in those seven years. In that case he will not spend his money, he will not employ people, and trade will be worse. The community wants these improvements. and the community should encourage tenants to make these improvements. You attempt to give some slight encouragement to the town tenants to improve their property and then you take it all away. I think there is every justification for urging that this Sub-section shall come out of the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. RYE: The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in his somewhat lengthy argument has overlooked one fact, and that is that the property belongs to the landlord. It is a trivial matter and does not concern him very much, and I do not know that I altogether blame him for having come to the conclusion that the landlord is not so much concerned with his own property, because this Bill takes away so many of his rights. But the fact is that it is the landlord's property. I have no doubt certain hon. Members opposite would like to take away a landlord's property from him altogether, but as the law stands the property is the landlord's, and no one can say that it is reasonable to suggest that a tenant, acting under an order obtained from the tribunal, should be
entitled to claim for improvements when the landlord decides to pull down his own property. When the landlord finds that the improvement which has been carried out by order of the tribunal is not required by the incoming tenant, what does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the position should be? When the premises come into the possession of a landlord—if indeed they ever do under this extraordinary Bill—and he has an opportunity of letting them to a new tenant and the new tenant says, "Yes, I will take the property, but I want the right to take out that which was considered by the tribunal to be an improvement "—for example, a shop front—"I do not want that shop front and I will not have it, and I want you to put in another," what is the landlord's position then? First, he has to put in that new shop front before letting to the new tenant, and then, according to the right hon. and gallant Member, he has to pay the outgoing tenant as well. I have heard some extraordinary arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member at one time and another, but I doubt whether I have ever heard a more extraordinary, fallacious, and, if I may respectfully say so, futile argument than that which I have heard from him this evening.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to ask the Home Secretary to answer one point which has been emphasised, but which has not been covered by the reply. Where a property has been enhanced and the proprietor finds it desirable to sell or reconstruct in order to sell the property or where a public authority has made a proposal to purchase it, will not that landlord naturally make a claim for the increased value, and, if so, why should not this Clause be taken out in order to see that the tenant shall get that which the landlord would be perfectly entitled to receive? As has been said, there is a strong desire that the provision of the Bill should be extended to Scotland, and I hope we shall hear something about that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot speak twice on the Report stage, but, by the leave of the House, I want to say that we tried very hard to keep ground values out of the Committee stage upstairs, and, like King Charles' head, it cropped up
from time to time. There is no more right for the increase which is due to the public ground value to belong to the tenant than to the landlord. The question of ground values is an arguable point, but it is not arguable on this Bill.

Mr. MacLAREN: I quite appreciate the point. There has been a rather interesting suggestion that where the landlord may sell property, with advantage, to some local authority, the increase should be divided between himself and the outgoing tenant. That is just about as immoral a contract as I have ever heard. One point has emerged, namely, the case of the tenant who has effected certain improvements, and there comes a time when the owner is going to demolish that improvement. The tenant, according to the Sub-section, is not entitled to receive compensation for the improvement effected nor to

gather into his own pocket some share of the increased ground revenues, but surely in the case of disturbances the landowners always get very liberal allowances where land is taken, and why should not the tenant in this case? Cannot the Home Secretary meet us in some way by putting something into the Bill whereby a tenant who is honestly disturbed in the ordinary sequence of the use of his improvements shall receive some form of compensation. If the Home Secretary would meet us in that way, it would go a long way towards meeting Members on this side who feel that there is a real hardship in the case of the tenant in circumstances like that.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the,' in line 22, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 139.

Division No. 316]
AYES.
[7.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut,Colonel
Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harrison, G. J. C.


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harlington, Marquess of


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W.
Couper, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hawke. John Anthony


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cunlifre, Sir Herbert
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bennett, A. J.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dixey, A. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Huntingfield, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliott, Major Walter E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ellis, R. G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Briggs, J. Harold
Fleiden, E. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Briscoe, Richard George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forrest, W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gates, Percy
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cassels, J. D.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Loder, J. de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Long, Major Eric


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Looker, Herbert William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lumley, L. R.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAnorew, Major Charles Glen


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Christie. J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacIntyre, Ian


McLean, Major A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Macmillan, Captain H.
Remer, J. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remnant, Sir James
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Slr W. Mitchell


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tinne, J. A.


Margesson, Captain D.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Meller, R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Merriman, F. B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Salmon, Major I.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watts, Dr. T.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J. C. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandon, Lord
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew,W)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shefield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nicholson. O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'lid.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)


Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith. R. W (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Withers, John James


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wolmer, Viscount


Perring, Sir William George
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Storry-Deans, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.



Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson..


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Scurr, John


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape. Thomas
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, Joseph


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W G.
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt, Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Day. Colonel Harry
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermiline)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. J. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ounnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Paling. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Pethic-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts. John S.
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwlch)



Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially."
I gather from hon. Members opposite that they do not like these words, but I think that they are right, and they bring this part of the Bill into conformity with the compensation provision of Clause 4, in which in Committee the words "wholly or partially" were incorporated. An hon. Friend desired to include the word "reconstruction," but you cannot have reconstruction without whole or partial demolition. Therefore, the better way of meeting his view and making this Clause coincide with other Clauses is to insert the words of the Amendment. I do not think they will affect at all seriously the right of a tenant to get his compensation. An hon. Member made the suggestion on the last Amendment that if you took three or four bricks off the top of a chimney of an enormous building, that would be partial demolition. With great respect I do not think that a tribunal composed of even moderately intelligent people would accept that view.

Mr. HARDIE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the intelligence of the great legal Bench of this country, which has given decisions, is less than that of the tribunal to be set up under the Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot make any suggestion as to the decisions of a Bench without knowing all the facts of the case as put before the Bench.

Mr. HARDIE: You can find that in the Library.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member can find it, he can study it himself. I am satisfied that a tribunal under the Bill would not come to any such absurd decision as the hon. Member has suggested.

Mr. TINKER: I oppose the Amendment, as, no doubt, the Home Secretary would expect. I would draw his attention to the Workmen's Compensation Act and to decisions on such a question as to what is a building 30 feet high. When that difficulty has arisen in the case of a more important Measure than this, it can very well be understood that the introduction of the word "par-
tially" might lead to difficulty here. The Amendment seems to take away whatever right the tenant may have, and to give the landlord every opportunity of making this Clause ineffective. If this Amendment is important, how is it that it did not strike the Home Secretary when the Bill was passing through Committee? Is it the case that members of the Opposition have been using their influence during the Recess and have brought the right hon. Gentleman's mind to bear on the point? I hope they have not, because during the Committee stage the Home Secretary fought most strenuously to keep the Clause intact.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: I suggest to the Home Secretary what seems to me a better word than "partially." I am sure that the Home Secretary desires a word which is not capable of any misinterpretation, and one which will not act adversely to the tenant. I suggest the word "materially." I do not know what my right hon. Friend will think that "materially" implies, but it seems to me that the word "partially" is capable of the interpretation that where a very slight alteration has been made it would deprive the tenant of some benefit. The word "materially" is less ambiguous, and with its incorporation the instructions to the tribunal would be clearer and more definite. The introduction of such a word would give considerable satisfaction to many people who now look upon the word "partially" with a good deal of suspicion.

Mr. BANKS: Surely the hypothetical case put by some hon. Members opposite cannot operate in practice. It is suggested that some landlords, by removing a few bricks from an improvement in certain premises, might defeat the right of the tenant—

Mr. TINKER: The case I mentioned was not hypothetical at all.

Mr. BANKS: There was a hypothetical case put by another hon. Member. It was suggested that a landlord might defeat the right of a tenant to get compensation for improvement merely by the removal of some bricks from a chimney or by some trifling alteration. In practice that will not be so, because the words which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert, "wholly or partially," are subject to the condition that under such
demolition, wholly or partially, the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises. You have to show, before the tenant's compensation can even be reduced, that the improvements have failed to add to the letting value of the premises. If the demolition is of such a character that it has not destroyed the additional value produced by the premises, the right of the tenant to get compensation is not affected. These words "wholly or partially" are quite properly in this Subsection, because they govern the words in the next Sub-section, "no compensation or a reduced amount." It may be that the entire demolition of the premises in ordinary circumstances would mean that no compensation would be paid, but it might mean that half the improvement has to be removed. In that case the compensation would be properly reduced by one-half, and so on, until you come to the very trifling alteration my right hon. Friend mentioned, in which case there would be no reduction of the compensation payable.

Mr. SEXTON: I have no doubt of the Home Secretary's intention; I have never doubted his good intention. But when he tells us that the tribunal would not come to such decisions as have been suggested, I would supplement the instance quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) by giving the right hon. Gentleman another. It relates also to the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and a case which was argued for weeks and eventually went to the House of Lords. The question to be decided was whether a well, 31 feet deep, down which a man fell, was a building 30 feet high. The decision was given against the man. We have had some experience of these legal definitions and are suspicious of them. Therefore, I think the Home Secretary would be right to use language which really defines what is meant.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: An improvement has been effected by the tenant, say, by putting in a plate-glass window, and all that the landlord has to do in the future, in order to escape payment of compensation, is to destroy that improvement alone. Under the Bill he has to demolish the property. Under the Amendment he has only "partially" to demolish it. A tenant puts in a claim, and the landlord
comes along and says, "No, I will not pay it, because I intend to demolish the property." Take the analogy of the Agricultural Holdings Act. The Home Secretary on the first Amendment said that he intended merely to put the town tenant in the same position as the tenant of agricultural land. But that is exactly what he is not doing. A landlord cannot, by demolishing in whole or in part the improvement made by the agricultural tenant, deprive a tenant of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. That was a subject of great debate in 1906 with reference to the case of Colonel Kenyon Slaney. But the law has been altered. Under the existing Acts it is provided that the tenant is entitled to compensation for any improvement he has made, regardless of the fact that that improvement may be of no value to an incoming tenant.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I dislike the Amendment for many reasons. In the first place it is bad English. The Home Secretary is usually a stickler for good English, and he should have seen that this Amendment was made so as to read. I do not know what is meant by demolishing a thing wholly or partially. How can you partially demolish anything? My next objection is, that I do not understand the Sub-section without these words in, and it is made much more difficult by including the words. What are the buildings referred to in the Sub-section? Are they the improvements or are they the whole holding, the old buildings and the new? What is going to be demolished here? As far as I can see, if these words are put in, what may happen is, that the landlord will pull down all the old premises and leave the new additions of the tenant untouched. That will be partially demolishing buildings. What is meant by the words "buildings"? If it is a question of buildings as a whole, if we put in "wholly or partially" obviously what is made possible is that the old buildings will be pulled down and the new buildings left standing, and because of that the tenant will have lost any chance of compensation. Is that really what the Government intend? Complete demolition is understandable, but directly you admit a word like "partially" you give cause for all sorts of counter-claims against the tenant's compensation.
It is not a question of whether a tribunal will think the change is material or not. The landlord simply has to prove that partial demolition has occurred and, if he proves that, the tribunal will be compelled to accept this wording. They will be forced by the addition of these words to consider a fact not an assumption. "Has the property been partially demolished?" or as I should prefer to put it in good English, "Has the property been altered or demolished?" That, I take it, is the correct English translation of what this Sub-section would stand for with the addition of the proposed words. If the property has been altered and the tribunal cannot possibly help seeing the alterations, the tenant's claim for compensation is changed. I will not say that his claim vanishes altogether but it will be changed. Therefore, looking at it from the point of view of the lawyer the man is put info a false position because the owner of the premises has altered them or has decided that there should be a change of user. I think it desirable that the Home Secretary should retain his first impressions of justice, sanity and good legislation in this connection. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman defended admirably, in words far better than we can attempt to use, the exclusion of these words in Committee. Now he proposes to accept them. He has been forced against his better intentions. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw these words I will sit down at once.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have listened carefully to this discussion and have consulted my hon. Friends who put forward this Amendment and, if it meets the views of the House—hon. Members know I want to get this Bill—I shall temporarily withdraw the present Amendment and consider between now and a further stage in another place the various words "wholly," "partially," "reconstructed," and so forth, in order to see whether I can find any better wording.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Limitation on tenant's right to compensation, in certain cases.)

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out paragraph (a).
We had a long discussion on this point in Committee and I do not suppose we shall be much more successful now than we were on that occasion. I know that some distinction of this kind must be made in bringing in new legislation, and I am sorry to admit that while moving the deletion of this paragraph we have not put down any words laying down a term of years in retrospect. I will content myself by moving formally the deletion of the paragraph.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after the word "improvement" to insert the words:
made in pursuance of a statutory obligation or of an improvement.
The effect of this Amendment is that if there is a statutory obligation to make a particular type of improvement, that is an improvement in regard to which the tenant should have no claim for compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "at."

This is a drafting Amendment and corrects a mistake in the wording of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from "willing" in line 24, to "having" in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words:
lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises.
This is in favour of the tenant. Hon. Members opposite say I am not fair and that I am putting in Amendments which are in favour of the landlord. Hon. Members should recollect that the Minister in charge of a Bill must have a receptive mind. He must be open to the influence of the arguments put before him. I think it is quite clear that the sitting tenant might be able and willing to give a higher rent than anybody else, and that should be left outside consideration in the settlement by the tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Landlord's right to object.)

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "holds," to insert the words
and will not prejudicially affect the amenities of the neighbourhood.
This is the Clause which enables the tribunal to insist upon an improvement being made. The conditions which, according to the Bill as it is now drafted, have to be satisfied are, first, that the improvement is shown to add to the letting value of the property; secondly, that it is reasonable and suitable to the character of the premises; thirdly, that it will not diminish the value of the lessor's other property and, fourthly, that it will not diminish the value of the superior landlord's property. I suggest the addition of the words "and will not prejudicially affect the amenities of the neighbourhood." That proposal I think is in the interests of the public. An improvement might fulfil all the requirements of the Bill and yet it might be greatly against the public interest. For instance, it might be proposed as an improvement in a beautiful country village street to erect a huge chimney—perhaps next to a church and spoiling the view of a place which people came to see and which ought to be preserved. Secondly, I think this proposal is of great importance from the point of view of reasonable town planning. A tenant might be able to say to a landlord, through the tribunal, "I insist upon this or that so-called improvement," and the alteration might be perfectly sound under the particular conditions laid down here, but it might be of such a character as to make town planning quite impossible. I move this Amendment in the interests of keeping the picturesque parts of our country intact and in the interests of town planning.

Mr. GATES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hesitated about these words when my hon. Friend the Mover put them before me. We all desire to keep the picturesque parts of the country unblemished and to preserve its amenities, but I ask the Mover to consider what is involved in this proposal. This is a Bill relating purely to landlord and tenant. My hon. Friend wants me to
import into the discussion between landlord and tenant of improvements which the tenant desires to make and which the landlord may be quite willing to accept, something which is quite outside the Bill. I am not at all sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I should not call attention to the Amendment as not being within the scope. of the Bill. My hon. Friend proposes that the tribunal should take into consideration the amenities of the surrounding district in regard to private improvements to be made by the tenant with the consent of the landlord or the tribunal. The object of the Bill all the way through and, particularly in the appointment of this tribunal, is to save legal costs. If the Amendment were carried it is clear that the local authority or any body of people interested in the amenities would be entitled to go to the tribunal and to instruct legal representatives and put a great deal of expense on the unfortunate landlord and tenant who might be quite willing to agree to an improvement. They would be compelled to fight a question of taste as to whether a particular improvement was or was not against the amenities of the district.
Let me point out that nine cases out of ten—probably ninety-nine out of one hundred—will be settled by agreement between landlord and tenant. The tenant and the landlord have a perfect right to make an improvement in the property without going to the tribunal at all and it is only in the case where the landlord differs from the tenant that the tribunal is called in and it is only a question of the cost and expense. It is only in those rare cases that the landlord will drag the tenant before the tribunal and only perhaps in one per cent. of the cases would the Amendment have any effect at all. I know my hon. Friend is a purist in the law and, with great respect, I hope I am too; but I think he is wrong in seeking to import into this Bill a proposal of this kind which might perhaps, be inserted in the Town Planning Bill of the Minister of Health but is not I think suitable in this Measure. The tribunal is only set up to inquire whether an improvement is for the benefit of the property or whether it will injure that property of the landlord or other property of the landlord. It is not right to import into the consideration of those questions another matter which involves
all kinds of evidence from people in the locality and perhaps from outside. The Automobile Association for example might come along and say, "Our members are fond of going through this particular village and we object to the improvement because it is not in accordance with the amenities." That may be quite right but it is not right in a landlord and tenant Measure and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see that I have made out a case that the discretion of the tribunal in the purely personal matter between landlord and tenant should not be fettered by any considerations of this kind.

Mr. RYE: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration the fact that, in the ordinary way, the landlord himself who has respect for the amenities would never allow a proposed alteration or improvement such as has been suggested. In these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that the Amendment is right, and I venture to go further and to suggest that it might be amplified by adding the words
or interfere with or destroy any historical or architectural feature attached to any part of the premises.
I suggest that, because I have in mind a case some years ago when a tenant tried to take out an old shop front and the landlord quite properly said, "I object to this. This is the last of the old Heppelwhite shop fronts in the whole of London." It is there to be seen to this day. It is the shop front of an Italian restaurant, and it is a very beautiful work of art; and but for the landlord's refusal, that very beautiful work of art, which should be retained there in situ, would have been destroyed. I can see that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and the tribunal is the deciding factor, the individual of which the tribunal will consist may be a man of no taste whatever, and he may say that Heppelwhite shop fronts make no appeal to him of any kind at all, and that it is a reasonable proposal of the tenant to take out a beautiful work of art and substitute a new one of modern type. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the Amendment as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University should have the consent of the House; and I hope if it does I shall be allowed to add the words I have mentioned by way of Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I am wondering whether we are not over-riding the powers of the local authorities. The local authorities have power to sanction plans for the alteration of buildings, and if this Amendment be included, it will over-ride their authority.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I wonder if the Home Secretary could, as he did in a previous Clause, take time between the passage of the Bill here and its introduction in another place to see if some words could be inserted to meet the point raised, and which at the same time will not encourage litigation or cause an expense to the landlord or tenant by the Automobile Association or some local authority. Would not it be possible after the words "reasonable and suitable to the character thereof" in the Clause to insert "having regard to the amenities of the neighbourhood"? That would be just an indication to the tribunal to meet such a case as that urged by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) to consider that the landlord was not unreasonable in refusing his consent to a particular improvement because it was something which, though desirable from the mercantile point of view, would interfere with the amenities of the district or of the particular building concerned. I quite agree it is very difficult to put words at the moment into this Clause without leading to the difficulty which the Home Secretary indicated; and I think many of us would be very pleased if he could, between now and the discussion of this Clause in another place, consider whether any words, without materially altering the Clause, could be put in which would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) and the hon. Member for Loughborough, which all parties of the House have at heart, namely, that the landlord should not be compelled to give his consent to an improvement which materially alters the character of a neighbourhood like a garden city. It might be very undesirable for all classes if some particular garage or some workshop were put in one of the residential streets. We would be very much obliged if the Home Secretary would take time between now and the Bill going to another place to find some words to meet that point.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I hope the Home Secretary will not be driven into leaving too many matters for further consideration. On this particular Amendment I am certain that my hon. Friends here will want to support anything that will improve the amenities of a neighbourhood, but the case put by the Home Secretary is a fair case. I have considerable experience in acting for the defence committee of a very large trading movement, and we have already quite sufficient handicap in what I may call legitimate building development in town planning schemes. There may be other Members in the House who have similar experience. While I believe that the people for whom I speak would not desire to develop business which would be inimical to the best amenities of a particular neighbourhood, we should view with considerable alarm a Clause like this which would leave in the hands of the landlord of any premises in which we carried on business the power to drag us before a tribunal to settle a question of this sort, and to leave open to other parties, apart from the landlord, a right to raise this particular issue. I have, as a matter of fact, two cases before me in my office of this sort of thing—not affected by a Bill of this kind, but by the Town Planning Act; and while I am anxious not to interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, I suggest that the local authorities have very wide powers in the case of a garden city or any area that has been scheduled, and it would only handicap enterprise and trade considerably if an additional power of this kind were given.

Mr. BANKS: If you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed discussion of this Amendment we can take it that it is in order, but it does seem to go rather outside the scope of the Bill. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to regulate the rights of landlords and tenants inter se, and neither to expand their rights nor contract their rights as they are in regard to the general public. It would be a dangerous precedent to introduce into landlord and tenant legislation matters which will take us very far into the question of the rights of public authorities and the public at large.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I hope the hon. Member will leave the Amendment over to be considered later on. It has the effect of allowing the tribunal to say whether they think it reasonable of the landlord to withhold his consent on the ground that the alteration destroys the amenities of the district. I should like to give an example. I have in mind the case of an individual who wants for trade purposes to change his shop front into an appearance of a Moorish kiosk, or something of that kind. In the case of a tobacco shop, that might be an advantage to the tenant for his own particular business, but it would undoubtedly have a serious effect on the amenities of an English eighteenth century street; and I think the House will take the view that in a case of that kind the landlord would be justified in saying: "No, I object to that alteration because it destroys the character of the street."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to make quite clear the difference between the action of the landlord and the tenant combined and the action of the tenant with regard to an outside body. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Withers) will try to draft something and put it to me, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to thank the Home Secretary for his kind attention. I will do what I possibly can. The idea was this, that as you are giving statutory powers to a tribunal you ought to limit it in the interests of the public. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GATES: In page 4, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
In the event of the tenant agreeing with his immediate landlord that a structural alteration may be made, such alteration may not he made, unless the consent of all superior landlords has been obtained.

Mr. GATES: When I put my Amendment down I had not foreseen the Amendment which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary proposes in page 4, line 37, alter the word "agreement," to insert the words
between the tenant and the landlord or landlords affected.
I think that that meets my point. What I have in view was that the tenant and the immediate landlord might come to an arrangement behind the back of the superior landlord. That might be awkward for the tenant, because the superior landlord would have rights under his lease and he might bring an action and make himself disagreeable. I think my point is met by the Amendment which the Home Secretary is going to move.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after the word "agreement," to insert the words:
between the tenant and the landlord or landlords affected.
We find there are in London cases of a chain of landlords one behind the other, and that an agreement come to between the tenant and one landlord might not be sufficient, and he would have to make an agreement between himself and the successive landlords in order to get a complete agreement. I think the words I suggest here meet my hon. Friend's case.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
and where proceedings have been taken before the tribunal, the tribunal shall not make any order as to costs until the expiration of the time so fixed for the completion of the improvement.
8.0 p.m.
The point which this deals with is this. It has been suggested—I do not think it very often happens in practice—that the tenant might worry his landlord by going to the tribunal and saying, "I want to make a certain improvement," and he brings witnesses and puts the landlord to the expense of bringing witnesses, and obtains an order from the tribunal for leave to make improvement, and obtains an order for costs on the assumption that the landlord has improperly forced him to go to the tribunal. It is quite true as the Bill stands that it would have been open to the tenant to say, "I have dealt the landlord a good blow in the face; I have got an order for costs against him; now I shall not worry about the improvement and I shall not make it." That would be a scandalous state of affairs to be within the provisions of the Bill. It was put before me by
a responsible organisation, and therefore I propose this Amendment.What I propose is that the tribunal shall not make an order granting costs until the tenant has made the improvement.

Mr. DALTON: I am sorry the Rome Secretary has been subjected to pressure from certain organisations behind the scenes to put this Amendment on the Paper. He said he had received representations from a certain organisation of property owners. It would be interesting if he were prepared to give the name.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers.

Mr. DALTON: We are interested to see the channels—sometimes, I may say, the almost too usual channels—through which things move, and those of us who hoped, when this Bill was introduced, that it would do something genuine for the tenants are getting more and more despairing in view of the way in which stronger and stronger influence is being brought to bear. I regard the Amendment as absolutely unnecessary and as likely to cause a serious grievance to the tenants. A case may arise in which an improvement may take a long time to complete, and the tenant, if the improvement is one which is proper and is going to enhance the value of the premises, is surely entitled to receive some payment on account, as it were, if the period of completion is long. I see no reason for making this very definite restriction. When I remember the way in which a very reasonable proposal, advanced in order to safeguard tenants against hypothetical and perhaps unlikely possibilities of being worried by their landlords, was brushed aside as being completely unnecessary, on the assumption that all landlords were sensible and honest people, it is rather discouraging to find that similar assumptions cannot be made in favour of the honesty of the average shop tenant. I think the Amendment is quite unnecessary and would inflict hardship in many cases on hardworking men who had been endeavouring to improve their premises within the limits of their right to compensation as laid down in the Bill; and we, on this side, shall oppose it.

Sir G. HOHLER: Surely the speech just delivered has been delivered under a misconception. I thought that no compensation was payable until the end of the tenancy. I do not know of any provision in this Bill which makes compensation payable from time to time during the tenancy. On the contrary, as I understand the whole thing, either the landlord consents or he dissents, and they go to the tribunal, which makes an order. I do not understand that the landlord at that period has to find any money at all. It is at the end of the term that any compensation is payable, and, therefore, it may be said that these words are surplusage.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The position put by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) is very clever, but it does not detract from the case put from this side. It is not the business of this House, in framing legislation, to provide only for the normal case; this House has to cover the abnormal case as well, and it is quite conceivable that under a Clause of this kind really big issues in regard to improvements will be taken to the tribunal, and that very considerable legal charges will he entailed.

Sir G. HOHLER: I gather that we are dealing with the costs of improvements for the moment. At any rate, it seems to me that the Amendment can only relate to improvements, but these must be made three years before the termination of the lease.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What I say is, that under the Bill as drafted, when you are dealing not merely with the small trader but with large businesses as well, it may be that questions raised by either tenant or landlord will involve quite considerable costs, and that a period may be fixed by the tribunal in favour of a tenant during which the improvement in dispute shall be completed. It may be a very considerable hardship on the tenant in such a case that there shall be no possibility of the tribunal making an order as to costs until the completion of the improvement. That is the whole point that is behind our objection to this Amendment. As I have said, you cannot, when you are drafting a Bill, conceive of all the contingencies that are likely to arise. You may get a very large issue arising in regard, say, to large business premises in the West end of London,
and there may be all kinds of difficulties which intervene, from a tenant's point of view, preventing his actually completing his improvement in the time first given by the tribunal. He may lose the whole of his legal costs, because of a decision of that kind, whereas, from the point of view of justice, if the tribunal's decision is, in the first place, in favour of the tenant, surely he ought to be given his costs at once. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: The wording of the Amendment does not seem to be quite clear. Costs here, read with the other parts of the Clause, would mean costs of improvements, whereas there may be costs quite apart from improvements. If we are going to be fair to the tenant who comes to the tribunal under any head of improvement, the moment that decision is given the question of costs should be dealt with finally, because, if you have some lease that extends for seven or 10 years beyond the date of the decision as to costs being given, what you seek to do now is to carry forward those costs until the end of that lease. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to alter this Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I might make a slight improvement here. I can understand the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, that a tenant would not know whether or not he was going to get his costs. The point that I made in my opening remarks was that it would not be fair to allow the tenant to pocket costs from the landlord, and then to say, "I have changed my mind, and 1 am not going to make the improvement at all." That, clearly, would be wrong, and I suggest that when proceedings are taken, the tribunal may suspend the execution of any order as to costs until the expiration of the time given for completion of the improvement. They would give the order and tell the tenant he would have his costs, but suspend the execution until he had made the improvement. I think it is clear that he is not really entitled to take the costs unless he is bona fide going on with the improvement.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think the best procedure would be for the Home Secretary to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and then to move it in another form.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
and where proceedings have been taken before the tribunal, the tribunal may suspend the execution of any order as to costs until the expiration of the time so fixed for the completion of the improvement.
That leaves the matter in the hands of the tribunal, and either party can apply to the tribunal again, which, I think, would meet all possible doubts.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has given to what was said from this side, though I do not think it quite meets the whole point that I put. I would have preferred that the order for costs should be made subject to completion of the improvement. It would then be much more certain that the tenant who gained the day would get his costs, and if he were in an embarrassed financial position, it would be easier for him to raise money. At the same time, I am obliged to the Home Secretary for his consideration.

Mr. G. JONES: I agree with the Amendment, but the question of costs is provided for in Sub-section (4) of Clause 20, where it says:
Subject to rules made by the Reference Committee the costs of any proceedings before the tribunal shall be in the discretion of the tribunal, which may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the tribunal may in any case disallow any costs which the tribunal considers to have been unnecessarily or unreasonably incurred.
I would suggest, with respect, that it is better to keep the subject of costs in one Sub-section, instead of having a portion of it in one part of the Bill and another portion of it in another part. Personally, I think Subsection (4) of Clause 20 is sufficient without any Amendment at all. The tribunal has ample power to deal with oppressive applications by tenants, but if it is desired to put in an Amendment, I suggest, in the interests of good draftsmanship, that it should be done in the appropriate part of the Bill.

Mr. GARDNER: I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, because while
I recognise the validity of the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary in a specific case, one's experience of the ordinary Rent Acts now in operation is that there are some landlords who will always resort to litigation, because they know that their tenants are victims of economic circumstances and are unable to meet the liabilities which litigation entails. Take the case of a shopkeeper who applies to his landlord for permission to make a bona fide improvement. He feels convinced that the improvement is necessary and will be advantageous to his business, but nevertheless the landlord refuses consent, and thereupon he goes to the tribunal, which decides against the landlord. Let it be assumed that the tenant has counted upon accommodation from a bank or from a friend or from a moneylender to make the improvement. The tenant might subsequently find himself in the position of not being able to carry out the improvement. Is he then to lose the advantage of having proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he was entitled to make the improvement, and to lose the costs, as he would do if the Home Secretary's proposal were accepted? That would be deplorable; and in view of the Home Secretary's opening observation that he had been subjected to pressure from the National Federation of Property Owners—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say that.

Mr. GARDNER: You accepted the implication.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said I had received representations. I have received many representations. I have received two to-day. Representations have come to me on many points, and it is my duty to receive them and to consider what they say.

Mr. GARDNER: Shall I say, "You received them very favourably?" That is the point. Judging by this little white leaflet, you have apparently received many other people very favourably. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give justice to the tenant, but I suggest that by this proviso you are going to create an injustice, and I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 115.

Division No. 317.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pennefather, Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grace, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perring, Sir William George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, William


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Remer, J. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remnant, Sir James


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bennett, A. J.
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Berry, Sir George
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rye, F. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briggs, J. Harold
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Casseis, J. D.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Colman, N. C. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Couper, J. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish universities)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Livingstone, A. M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Ward Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watts, Dr. T.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wiggins, William Martin


Dixey, A. C.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edge, Sir William
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Merriman, F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Withers, John James


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersley, W. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Forrest, W.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Captain Lord Stanley and Mr.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Penny.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Charleton, H. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clowes, S.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Montague, Frederick
Vlant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sexton, James



Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation for goodwill.)

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the words "from year to year" and to insert instead thereof the words "terminable by notice."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments on the White Paper are intended to provide a proper definition of the two classes of tenancies which are dealt with. In paragraphs (a) and (b), a distinction is drawn between tenancies from year to year and tenancies for a term of years. This is not a correct distinction having regard to the law under which leases for life may be determined by notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, lines 18 and 19, leave out the words "to quit."

In page 5, line 20, leave out the words "the case of a tenancy for a term of years" and insert instead thereof the words "any other case."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, after the word "to" to insert the words "be paid by his landlord."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment seems to me merely to say at greater length what I think is the intention of the Clause, but I am willing to accept this Amendment subject to my right to revise it later on.

Mr. ATKINSON: The same words are to be found in Clause 1.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I would suggest the insertion of the words "to be paid compensation by his landlord for goodwill."

Mr. ATKINSON: The words I have suggested have been taken from the corresponding Clause in the Bill. If a reference is made to Clause 1, Subsection (1) of this Bill you will find there the words "to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) read, and I will put the Amendment as it has been moved.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Here we have an example of the difficulties which I pointed out at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. The House has been asked to accept words without having had any opportunity of reading them, much less studying them. Consequently, we do not know exactly to what we are assenting. I understand that the leaders of the Opposition have had a copy of these Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I know there has been some conversation between the representative of the Government and the Mover of this Amendment. The representative of the Government admits that he has not seen the words which he is now asking the House to insert in the Bill, and besides this there seems to be a little difference of opinion between you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the Solicitor-General regarding the words which ought to be inserted. We are not quite clear as to the words used by the Mover of the Amendment which have been accepted by the Solicitor-General. I protest most emphatically against this method of procedure.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division. Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON and Mr. PENNY were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Sir Philip Pilditch.

Sir G. HOHLER: May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have an Amendment in line 24, following the word "goodwill"? I handed it in some days ago to the Home Secretary.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That comes after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch).

Sir G. HOHLER: My Amendment is in page 5, line 24, after the word "goodwill," to insert the words 
but excluding from such goodwill anything that is attributable to the situation of the holding.
This Clause is one which proposes to give compensation for goodwill to a tenant whose tenancy determines if he has been a tenant for seven years—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has handed in an Amendment, but it is put down as being in line 34. Do I understand that it is in line 24?

Sir G. HOHLER: It should be line 24.

Mr. WHITELEY: On a point of Order. Is the Opposition not entitled to have some idea of these Amendments? We have no knowledge of them whatever, and it is absolutely impossible to follow them.

Mr. LEE: May I point out that the Home Secretary has an Amendment in line 25 in almost identical terms?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are discussing this Bill in circumstances of considerable difficulty, but it often happens on Report that manuscript Amendments are put in, and, of course, in existing circumstances, there is more reason for them, after the long Recess, than usual. Technically, I should be entitled, I think, to refuse to take the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, but, as its being put down in line 34 instead of in line 24 is obviously purely a lapse, I am not disposed to refuse it. I would, however, suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should read it out slowly at the beginning of his speech, and again at the end.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On the point of Order. I submit to you that it is customary for the Chair and for the Leaders of the Opposition to be furnished with copies of such Amendments. In the discussion on the last Amendment, I pointed out exactly this difficulty. Now we do not know where we are. We do not know whether this Amendment will be in line 24 or in. line 34, or whether it will be prior or subsequent to the Amendment we have just adopted. I again appeal to you, Sir, to protect the House against these indignities, and to see that the House is in possession of data that will enable it to arrive at an intelligent conclusion on the questions that are being submitted. I submit that the House
is not being properly treated, and I protest against this Amendment being taken at all.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I see no question of indignity that arises, though I do see questions of inconvenience. In all the circumstances, however, as the Bill has been set down for consideration to-day, and Parliament has not been sitting for three months, I do not think I can refuse Amendments which read, merely on the ground that they have not appeared in print; but, undoubtedly, the position is rather a difficult one, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member to be as explicit as he can.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move,
That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I do so in order that the House may have an opportunity of having these Amendments printed and properly considered.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The circumstances in which this Bill has been put down for to-day are that the House was supposed to be anxious, as I believe it is, to proceed with the Bill, and it has been put down, accordingly, on the earliest day on which we resumed. Certain difficulties are, no doubt, inherent in the position in which we find ourselves, as some hon. Members have had no opportunity, or, at least, not a long opportunity, in the latter part of the Session, of putting down Amendments; but such difficulties are made to be overcome by people who want the Bill to go through, and those who do not wish the Bill to go through can, naturally, use those difficulties to suggest that its further consideration should be adjourned. I am not able, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Motion, and I hope we may be allowed to proceed with the consideration of the Measure.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is perfectly true. I believe, that the majority of the House desire this Bill to go through, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill should go through in an imperfect form. What is far more important is that the House should know exactly what it is passing. The only object of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is that we shall be able to apply ourselves
intelligently to a proposal that has been made. I submit. that we cannot apply ourselves intelligently to something that we do not understand, and the only object of my right hon. Friend is that the House itself may know exactly what it is discussing. I can quite understand that the hon. and learned Member who is responsible for this Amendment may do his very best to elucidate his proposal, but I do not think for a moment that he will claim that it would be as intelligible as if it were before us and we knew exactly what it meant.

Sir G. HOHLER: I do not agree with that.

Mr. THOMAS: That is to say, the hon. and learned Member believes that he is far more intelligent than anything he could put on paper. That is the only possible interpretation that can be put upon his interruption.

Sir G. HOHLER: The intelligence must precede the paper.

Mr. THOMAS: That, however, is not the point that we are discussing. The object of this Motion is not to block the progress of the Bill, or to retard it in any way, but to ensure that the Members of the House of Commons, when they explain to their constituents what they were doing, will be able to say, "We did it with a full knowledge of all that it meant, of all its implications, and were quite sure as to its results." I cannot conceive of anyone taking exception to a situation of that kind and I am sure the Solicitor-General must feel himself embarrassed. He above everyone else has a moral, apart from a legal, responsibility. He has not the remotest notion what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. [Interruption.] That makes it worse. That is what I suspected. The Solicitor-General says, "Never mind what the rest of the House may feel about it, I am quite clear because I have already got it in front of me."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The only reason I have it in front of me is that I paid attention to my hon. and learned Friend, and took his words down as he spoke them.

Mr. THOMAS: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, but we are not all shorthand writers. More-
over, those who know the hon. and learned Gentleman are quite satisfied that he will not say the same when he gets up next time. The Solicitor-General is the one person above all others to whom we have to look for guidance, the one person who has to say, as Law Officer of the Crown, "I have given careful and mature consideration to this proposal," and when the Question is put he will say, "In the time at my disposal, I think so-and-so, but do not pin me to a definite opinion." The people in Lancashire say that what they say to-day the world will say to-morrow. We apply that to Bristol, and in this case I cannot understand the hon. and learned Gentleman doing other than welcoming the commonsense proposal of my right hon. Friend. For all these reasons, I hope he will say, "This is an important matter; there is a great legal point involved, and, as Law Officer of the Crown, mature consideration compels me to agree to the Motion."

Captain GARRO-JONES: If we could project ourselves into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I think the rejection of this Motion is not due to his desire to support the Bill but to his desire for the convenience of the House. I submit that the interests of the Bill ought to come before the interests of the House, and for the very reason that I am a supporter of the little this does for the tenants, I am supporting the Motion for the Adjournment. There is a White Paper that is supposed to have been sent to every Member of the House. I have not received a copy to begin with, and there

are others who have not received it. Even if we had all received it, is there any precedent for dealing with an important Bill in this way? Has there ever been a case where an important Bill like this has been set down for the first day of the Session and a White Paper full of Amendments been circulated to Members in some cases, and not in others, before the Bill comes on? If there be such a precedent, I should like to know something about it. I am very suspicious about all these Amendments. I have not had time to go into them. To take one example, the present Amendment proposes that compensation for goodwill should not be given if that goodwill arose out of the position of the holding. It seems to me that any sort of goodwill could be claimed on the ground that it arose out of the position of the holding. In every goodwill that was ever conceivably created, the position of the holding must have played a very important part. It is obviously a wrecking Amendment. It is going to detract from the few things that it proposes to do for the tenants, and goodness knows it is little enough as it is. There are many similar Amendments on the White Paper. The Solicitor-General is not able to weigh up the merits as they are brought forward. There is peril in every one of them, and I support the Motion, in the interests of the tenants, that the Debate should be adjourned until we know where we stand.

Question put, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 207.

Division No. 318.]
AYES.
[8.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hayday, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Day, Colonel Harry
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Baker, Walter
Dennison, R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Duckworth, John
Hirst, G. H.


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bondfield, Margaret
Edge, Sir William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Briant, Frank
Fenby, T. D.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gosling, Harry
Kirkwood, D


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, George


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawrence, Susan


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James


Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, F.


Cluse, W S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lowth, T.


Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Mackinder, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maxton, James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Murnln, H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, J. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Whiteley, W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wiggins, William Martin


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Potts, John S.
Sullivan, Joseph
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Riley, Ben
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ritson, J.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Windsor, Walter


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph



Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lumley, L. R.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Atkinson, C.
Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bainiel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Margesson, Capt. D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grace, John
Meller, R. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Merriman, F. B.


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Duiwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Perring, Sir William George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cassels, J. D.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Remer, J. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Huntingfieid, Lord
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Salmon, Major I.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belf'st.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Storry-Deans, R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Withers, John James


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watts, Dr. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Mr. Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

Sir G. HOHLER: The Adjournment of the Debate was moved by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and I am not sorry he moved it. I equally protest that these Amendments were not printed; still I voted against him. I did my best to get my Amendment printed. Last week I wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk at the Table. I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to get it printed, but it all failed. However, there it is. I think that time has not been wasted by what the right hon. Gentleman has done, because since he objected to these manuscript Amendments I have read the White Paper, and he will be pleased to hear that I have found in page 6 that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an Amendment to Clause 4, page 6, line 25, to insert the words:
and shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.
That will do for me very well. I thank him, and I shall not move my Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it has been ruled an abuse of the Rules of the House to speak on an Amendment and then not to move it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that it is altogether against the custom of this House to refuse the Adjournment in order that we may have an Amendment printed and then for the Mover of the Amendment to come and contemptuously say to the House, "I am not going to move it."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have just expressed an opinion on that point.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move in page 5, line 26, after the word "title," to insert the words, "since the commencement of the tenancy."
The object of this Amendment and a few other Amendments to the same effect
which stand on the Paper in my name, is to make it clear that "predecessors in title" in the Bill are the predecessors in title of the tenant of the holding in question. That is what the Bill is, no doubt, intended to mean. I understand there is some legal authority for the belief that these words, taken without qualification, might include owners of some other interest than that of the tenant himself; and it is with a view to making that clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that I propose this Amendment and the other Amendments which will follow shortly afterwards. I have put down as an alternative an Amendment to Clause 24, which is the interpretation Clause of the Bill, to add these words, which will define what "predecessor in title" means:
The expression 'predecessors in title' means any person through whom the tenant has derived title whether by assignment, by will, by intestacy or by operation of law.
If my right hon. Friend agrees that that is the best way of dealing with this point, then I shall not move either of the Amendments which stand in my name dealing with the words stated and shall leave the matter till the interpretation Clause comes up and deal with it then. I rather hope my right hon. Friend will agree to that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. Member moves or not?

Sir P. PILDITCH: Yes, Sir, I do move, subject to the suggestion I have made. [Interruption.] I thought I had explained that it is desirable that the term "predecessor in title" should be made clear. I do move the Amendment.

Mr. RYE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have looked at the Amendment which my hon. Friend proposes to move in Clause 24, page 21, line 42, defining predecessors in
title, so as to make it quite clear who are included in the expression. When that Amendment is moved I propose, or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes, to accept it. In these circumstances, perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment now.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Amendment which is to be accepted by the Solicitor-General in the interpretation Clause carries out the purpose of the Amendment which the hon. Member has now proposed? If so, it is most dangerous. Does the House appreciate what the words mean? if the words now proposed by the hon. Member were accepted, the trade would have had to be carried on by the predecessors in title since the beginning of the lease, and any change in the business would vitiate the claim for compensation for goodwill. Goodwill can be claimed for a period of not less than seven years; but seven years is obviously in the majority of cases much less than the length of the lease. If the hon. Member now is to put in a provision that the predecessors in title since the commencement of the tenancy must have carried on the same trade, it means that in most cases the words "for a period of not less than seven years" will be utterly futile. The tenancy may have to have been carried on 99 years. I hope the Solicitor-General is not accepting an Amendment which will in any way vitiate the right of the tenant to secure compensation for goodwill if he and his immediate predecessors for seven consecutive years have carried on the business.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend at once that there is no such intention. The intention is that if the business has been carried on by himself or his predecessors in title for seven years compensation, subject to the terms of the Act, shall be payable. The only question is as to what precisely the term "predecessors in title" means. Is it to include the landlord, or is it to include persons from whom he derives his title by assignment, or something of that nature? I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance which he desires most explicitly.

Sir P. PILDITCH: In view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. PEPPING: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the word "seven" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
When the Bill passed its Second Reading there was no qualifying period in it enabling the tenant to secure compensation if he complied with Clause 4. I very much regret that any period has been put in the Clause. The Government, in view of representations, moved an Amendment in Committee to make the term five years but, unfortunately, they were defeated and the term seven years was inserted. The principle of the Bill is that where the tenant can prove under Clause 4 that he has added to the value of the premises and, if I might use the language of the Home Secretary, "the landlord might walk off with it," the landlord should compensate him. I submit that there is no qualifying period because first of all the tenant has to prove that he has created goodwill before he can even be entertained by the tribunal. If he can prove—I do not say that he can prove it—that he has created goodwill in twelve months, the principle of the Bill should entitle him to have the benefit of it. It is not a question of five years or seven years, it is entirely a question of the landlord enjoying some advantage as a result of the efforts of the tenant in creating goodwill.
In suggesting seven years we are going to inflict in a good many cases a serious hardship on tenants who hold yearly tenancies. Men who have been in occupation for five years may then receive notice from their landlord to quit under the terms of this Bill and be deprived of advantage, even although they can comply with Clause 4 and prove to the tribunal that they had created a goodwill with which the landlord would walk off. I am sure that the Government have no desire to do that and that they have no desire to inflict a hardship on the poorest class of tenant who may be taken advantage of by his landlord. I realise that even if we insert a term of five years it will be possible for the landlord to make terms with his tenant for five years to-day and by that means deprive the tenant of the
advantage of the goodwill, if he has created one. I do ask the House to narrow down in some measure this seven years term and bring the advantages of the Bill to people who will not enjoy them if the term remains at seven years. In view of the fact that the Government recommended the Committee to accept a period of five years, I suggest that they should now ask the House to accept what they could not secure in Committee, and thereby confer a benefit upon a considerable number of small tenants, yearly tenants, and less than yearly tenants, who if the period of seven years operates will be deprived of an advantage which they would otherwise get.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I can understand the reasons which may have prompted the insertion of some words fixing a period of years, although I think it would have been better to have had no term of years inserted. I can understand that there might be some point in the contention that frivolous applications might be made and that the tribunal would be overweighted with applications from tenants who had only used the premises for a short time, and that the time of the tribunal might be taken up in that way; but I suggest that seven years is far too long a period. Five years is a very considerable time, and that would rule out any frivolous cases. Perhaps some hon. Members who have not read the Bill may imagine that it is proposed in all cases to give compensation to the tenant, whether it be in respect of seven years or five years, on account of goodwill. That is not the case.
The tenant in every instance has to prove that the goodwill has actually been created and is attached to the premises. Some tenants will create goodwill very quickly, and others may create no goodwill at all even though they may be there for five, seven, 10 or 15 years. It is the tribunal which has to decide the question. What the House has to settle now is whether any case shall lie before a tribunal unless at least a tenancy of seven years has taken place. I suggest that that is entirely unreasonable. If a tenant who has only been in occupation for five years or six years is able to show that during that time he has created con-
siderable goodwill and that that goodwill is attached to the premises, the fact that he has not been in the premises more than that period ought not to be a bar against his being heard before the tribunal, and, if he can prove his case, getting compensation under this Clause.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The difference between five and seven years is obviously not of very great importance. I am not sure that a five years' goodwill is worth much to anybody. There may be cases now and then in which goodwill after five years may be worth a small sum, but I do not think there are many such cases. I should have been prepared to do whatever the general sense of the House suggested as between five and seven years but for one fact. There was a long discussion in the Committee upstairs, and two votes were taken on the matter. On each occasion there was a majority in favour of seven years as against five. The actual votes were in the one case 16 to 6 and in the other 14 to 9. It is no part of my duty to throw over lightly a decision of a Committee, come to after very considerable discussion, unless there is a strong opinion in the House that five is a better figure than seven. As the Committee upstairs thrashed out the question, in detail, and as seven years was deliberately accepted by the Committee, I submit to the House that it is better to adhere to the decision of the Committee; that after a much shorter and less satisfactory discussion the House should not depart from the figure.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish on this occasion we could be favoured with a document containing the printed arguments put forward by the representative of the Government when they move in Committee that the period should be five and not seven years. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General says that there is very little in it, but that was not the tone adopted by the Government when the Bill was before the Committee. He now tries to shelter himself behind the decision of the Committee and says that if there is a strong view expressed in the House in favour of five then the Government would accept it. Of course, the Government would have to accept it or resign. But what we are interested in is not so much how we are to impress the hon. and learned
Gentleman's mind, but how he proposes to lead the House. I submit that it is the duty of the Government to give a lead to the House on an important question like this. It is not enough to say, "We will accept the decision of the House." We want to know the view of the Government. If you accept five years and delete seven years you will bring into the provisions of the Bill, and any benefits there are in it, a large number of very poor and worthy people. It is the large wealthy capitalists who can afford to maintain premises over long periods of years. The small shopkeeper, as a rule, is often in insolvent circumstances during the course of seven years. We want to protect small shopkeepers from rapacious landlords. The Government want to exclude as many people as possible from the provisions of the Bill. I shall vote for the Amendment, and I cannot see how a Government with any credit to itself can refuse to accept the protection of the House against interested parties who upstairs compelled them to accept a decision they did not want.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I desire to appeal to the Solicitor-General to allow us to have a free vote on this question. I served on the Committee upstairs dealing with this Bill and I know something about the manœuvres that took place in order to get the seven years inserted. We were told by the representative of the Government that the period in the Bill would be five years, and those of us who had the interests of the tenants at heart were prepared to accept that as a compromise. A certain section of my own party, who were in persistent opposition from the very beginning, tried all they could to get 14 years inserted, and then they said that as a compromise they would accept seven years. I know that the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, had a very trying day—he had more than one trying day—and I can quite understand his saying, "Let seven go," in order to get the matter through. I think the House has a right to a free vote on this matter, and we can then take it as the decision of the House. It is not fair to ask us to take the decision of the Committee, secured by a certain small section, as a decision by which the House must stand.

Sir W. BULL: Do hon. Members really suppose that any goodwill can be created
in five years' time? Hon. Members opposite talk about goodwill being created in a year or two. It could be done by a very popular owner of a shop, but the moment that owner goes out the goodwill has gone. I do not believe there is a single person who believes that anything like a valuable goodwill, or anything worth paying for, can be accomplished in a period of five years, and I suggest we should stick to the compromise of seven years.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It is not difficult for us on this side of the House to understand why hon. Members opposite cannot see how any goodwill can be created in five years. They have been labouring to create goodwill in the country for the past three years and have been singularly unsuccessful. Those who know how logical the Solicitor-General's arguments usually are were surprised to hear him say that, because the Committee upstairs came to a certain decision, this House on Report stage ought not to alter that decision. If that be so, what reason is there for a Report stage at all if the decision of the Committee is to be held out as an argument why we should not alter it? I should like to know on what grounds the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) says that no goodwill can be created in five years. What is goodwill? It is nothing more or less than the habit of certain citizens going to one shop for their produce rather than to another. It may be because they like the personality of the proprietor, or because it happens to be 50 yards nearer than the next shop. But in any case it is a habit, and it is a habit which can be entered into after five months or 12 months. Goodwill is created progressively, from the moment the tenant commences business. If the principle be accepted that goodwill after 20 years must be credited to a tenant in negotiations with his landlord, then, logically, he should have a proportionate credit for goodwill created in one year or two years. I think five years is an extremely reasonable period, and I shall support the Amendment. I hope the Solicitor-General will leave it to a free vote of the House.

Mr. G. JONES: I hope the Government will leave this matter to a free vote. When the Committee upstairs came to a decision on this point less than one
half the members were present. There were 60 members on the Committee and only 25 to 30 were present. I entirely agree with the observation that a lot of manœuvring went on by those who were systematically opposed to the Bill throughout the Committee. The idea of putting a period in the Bill came from those who tried to wreck the Measure. The Government themselves wanted no period; there was no period in the Bill. The Government were right, and I am extremely sorry that they tried to compromise. It only shows the folly of trying to compromise. The Government suggested five years, and immediately the anti-Bill elements, realising they were in a majority in the Committee, rushed through seven years. It is a wonder they did not rush through 14 years. The argument that you cannot create goodwill in five years leaves me quite cold because, if you cannot create goodwill, then there will not be any compensation payable. Why should there be all this fuss to protect the landlords from having to pay compensation for goodwill unless they fear that compensation is payable? If the tenant does not create goodwill, he will not get compensation. If he does create goodwill in five years, it is contrary to the principle of the Bill that he should be deprived of compensation. It is wholly unjustifiable that he should be deprived of compensation by a provision of this sort carried in the teeth of the Government by snap Divisions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question before the House at the moment is the rather humiliating one of whether enough of us can speak to impress the learned Solicitor-General with the fact that the House cares enough to induce him to take off the Whips. He has admitted that the only reason for opposing this Amendment is that it was carried against the Government upstairs.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I said that in the absence of a good reason for preferring "five" to "seven"—which I am bound to say I have not heard yet, although hon. Members have expressed their personal views—I thought it reasonable to stand by the Committee's decision. Until I hear some good reason I shall not alter my opinion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to hear it is an open question still with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he sees clearly the advantage of no period at all over seven years. The whole basis of this Amendment is that goodwill should be paid for, and that the man who has created goodwill and can prove that he has done so should be compensated. This is not a question of expediency but of justice, and those who say that all the people who can prove they have created goodwill but have not been in a place five years should not be compensated are actuated not by justice but by a desire to save the landlords from a number of perfectly justifiable claims. The House will agree that goodwill can be created in a very short time. Undoubtedly every Member of this House goes to the same tobacconist, paper-shop, provision dealer and chemist. They probably do not know the name on the shop, but they go to the tobacconist at the corner, or the chemist across the road. The fact that that shop has been there a certain time creates a goodwill for that class of business at that particular spot. Whether that goodwill can be estimated and proved to the satisfaction of the court is another matter. It certainly can be created in less than seven years. Of course, it is not merely a question of situation. If the shop you go to supplies good chocolates you go to that one in preference to another one and go to it year after year. Sometimes you effect a change when the account you have run up is rather more than you can liquidate, but, normally speaking, you go on dealing with the same shop.
If it be just to compensate for goodwill when the tenant has been a long time in occupation, it is equally just to compensate when he has been a short time in occupation. Of course, in nine eases out of 10, the man does not want to shift at the end of his lease but wants to keep the same business on. Under this Bill he is provided with a feeble lever to enable him to continue his tenancy and to get a re-lease of the premises. It is not usually a question of the landlord claiming hard cash; it is a question of the tenant, with this Bill behind him, saving to a landlord, "If you do not give me a re-lease on terms I am prepared to pay, then I shall go to the Courts and demand com-
pensation." That man ought to be supported by this House. We know the cases of injustice that have occurred through a man working up a business and then being turned out. Leave the small chance those men have here to use the pressure of a claim for compensation for goodwill to induce the landlord to grant a fresh lease of the premises.

Mr. ATKINSON: Although I am in favour of this Amendment, I am convinced there ought to be no period at all. At any rate, it ought to be a very short period. My reason is that it is so easy for a landlord to drive a coach-and-four through this provision as it stands. If you have a seven-year period, there will be no more seven-year leases after this Bill passes. By agreement among the landlords there will only be six and a half year leases, and the moment the term is up then another will be granted. You may say that if a five-year period is fixed, there will be four and a half year leases. That is not so likely, because the landlord, after all, wants a reasonable period, and is far more likely to grant leases of over five years than under five years. Take away the period altogether and you do away with all these difficulties. My objection to any period at all is that it enables a landlord to drive a coach-and-four through the Bill by granting leases shorter than the period.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Solicitor-General said he had heard no good argument in favour of the Clause. There are two or three very good reasons in favour of it. One is that the Amendment will more nearly carry out the original intention of His Majesty's Government in drafting the Bill, and will do it in favour of that class of tenants, the small tenants, who most need protection of that kind. Secondly, I would point out that the Government representative himself on the Committee stage moved an Amendment providing for a period of five years. Unfortunately for the Committee that day, and for the tenants holding short leases, the Home Secretary was not present. The House is entitled to hear his views on this question. Unfortunately for the tenants, too, the representative of the Government was rather weak in his speech. He said that this Amendment had been agreed to in principle, and it was highly probable that goodwill would
not arise when the tenant had been in occupation for a short period only. It was a question of whether it should be five or seven years. He could go as far as seven years if the Committee thought it desirable, but he would be glad to hear the views of the Committee before they came to a decision. In other words, he was asking, as we are asking the Solicitor-General now, for a free vote on this matter. The Government themselves have no opportunity of making up their mind as to what the time limit ought to be. Then I come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chorley (Captain Hacking), and I find that in summing up the discussion he said this:
I think it might be a reasonable compromise to accept five years because those who have been speaking for the tenant have advocated three years, and those who speak for the landlord have advocated seven years.
I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that that is a powerful argument in favour of five years, because it comes midway between the contention of the one side and that of the other. With regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) about short tenancies and goodwill, I would call attention to the fact that the Home Secretary supplied the Standing Committee with a very delightful suggestion as to the way in which goodwill can be built up in a short time. He was talking about going home at night:
I may say that when I lived on that line I went home sometimes with a good pineapple, and my wife would say the following week, 'We have some friends coming in to dinner; do buy another pineapple.' Thus the goodwill of this shop may be of two kinds. There is the personal goodwill owing to the ability of the man to carry out his business perhaps better than a greengrocer in the immediate neighbourhood. Secondly, there is to some extent the site goodwill attaching to the particular spot, which the man could not move."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee B), 31st May, 1927, col. 304.]
The point is that a man may have a site which is a good site and which he himself makes valuable because he is a keen business man and puts an attractive proposition before his clients. He is the very man who might to have full advantage of the original intention of the Government. I hope that either the Government will accept the proposal for five years or leave the matter to a free vote of the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had the privilege of having had reported to me while I was snatching a frugal snack the eloquence that has been used on this question, and I have had the advantage since I came into the House of listening to the hon. Member opposite. I have a suggestion to make. Nearly everyone wants this Bill. I think that even those who say that it does not go as far as it might go would like to see the Bill passed. The House has discussed this question at considerable length. If I let it go to a free vote of the House, may we take the decision at once? I should be quite willing in that case not to put on the Government Whips.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "premises" in line 29 to the end of line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words:
by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent than they would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto.
We come to a very important question here. Under the provisions of Clause 4 the House will see that the person who wants to get compensation for goodwill has to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal "that by reason of the carrying on by him or his predecessors in title at the premises of a trade or business for a period of not less than five years goodwill has become attached to the premises, which will in the absence of arrangements to the contrary be of pecuniary advantage to the landlord." The House will notice the words "pecuniary advantage to the landlord." In Committee there was a long discussion in trying to find out how this could be settled. As I have said, the whole foundation of this Bill is not that the tenant is to be compensated for his loss. There may be a very large loss indeed to a tenant in giving up possession of his premises. The basis of the Bill is to remedy an evil which has been complained of for many years, in London and elsewhere in country towns, that the landlord was able, at the termination of a lease, to appropriate to himself the goodwill created by a tenant who had carried on business in one of these shops.
As was said on Second Reading, everyone knows that a goodwill is built up in
every well-conducted shop by every well-conducted and hard-working shopkeeper. At the end of the tenancy, up to now, that goodwill disappears. The tenant has been bound at the end of the lease to clear out if the landlord desired it, and the landlord has been at liberty the following morning to let the shop to someone carrying on a business similar to that of the departing tenant. It is quite clear that if the incoming tenant was in the same business as the outgoing tenant, he would appropriate to himself a certain proportion, if not the whole, of the goodwill built up by the first tenant. Of course part of it would go to the landlord, who would be able to get a higher rent from the new tenant than from the old. We have to find some method of preventing the landlord appropriating to himself for his own pecuniary advantage, that goodwill which the landlord has done nothing whatever to create but which is the creation of the outgoing tenant. After a great deal of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the best way of making this really fair between the parties is the Amendment which I have moved. It is a plain and straightforward way of arriving at a decision. It is suggested to the House after very full consideration by my legal advisers, and I think it will give the benefit neither to the landlord nor to the tenant, and will be perfectly fair.
There is the simple case of the pineapple and of the fruiterer who built up-quite a good business by his strict attention and industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), who interrupts me, is a very bitter opponent of this Bill, and he is trying to put into my mouth things which I do not intend. The question of the station yard in quite a different matter. Here is a shop, anywhere you like, in the City of London or in the outskirts of London, where a man by attention to his work has built up a good fruiterer's business. It may be rented for 14 years at £100 a year. When the tenant goes out it may very likely be that that goodwill will be taken by another tenant, because customers who have been to the shop regularly under the old tenant will continue to go to it under the new tenant, assuming that the business remains as good. The landlord may be able to get £200 a year for the premises. He may not have a higher offer than £150 from a
butcher or baker or anything of that kind. If, however, a butcher is prepared to give £200 a year, it is prima facia evidence that the goodwill of the outgoing fruiterer is of no value. The goodwill of the fruiterer would be of no value to the butcher. I am assuming for the moment that he would be prepared to pay the same rent as any other fruiterer. If by reason of that goodwill the landlord was able to collect a higher rent than the premises would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto, that I think is the measure of the compensation which the landlord ought to pay to the tenant. I have thought this subject out with care, and I have tried to put the matter carefully and fairly between the two parties, and I submit that the words which I now propose to insert are fairer and simpler than the other words, and that they are words which will be easily understood by landlord and tenant.

Mr. RYE: I have no objection to the Amendment provided it does in fact carry out the intention of the Home Secretary. He told the House on Second Reading, and repeated it on no less than nine occasions during the Committee stage, that if the landlord let the premises for another purpose and did not attempt to take advantage of the goodwill, then there was to be no payment of compensation. With that view I am in agreement. I also agree—in consequence of correspondence I have had with the right hon. Gentleman—that if the landlord were deliberately to take a lower offer from a person carrying on the old trade, then, as the Bill is drawn, compensation should be paid, but I hope it will be made clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment carries out his intention. As I read the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is merely asking the outgoing tenant to go to the tribunal and prove the obvious. All the outgoing tenant has to do is to say to the tribunal that the premises were worth more by virtue of the fact that he had carried on a fruiterer's business there for 21 years than they would have been worth had there been no fruiterer's business there. That would be stating the obvious, and the result would be that the tribunal would be forced to award compensation even in a case
where the landlord had not let for the purpose of a fruiterer's business, and even in a case where the landlord had actually pulled down the premises or intended to pull them down. I do not think any Member of the House would desire to see a landlord who had never attempted to take the goodwill, who had done no harm to the tenant, mulcted in compensation even where he had pulled down the premises. That is the point which I wish to emphasise, and I suggest that a manuscript Amendment which I have handed in would make the position clearer, particularly if taken in conjunction with the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members on page 6 of the White Paper—in page 6, line 25, at the end to insert the words:
(e) No award of compensation shall be made if the landlord proves:
(i) That he has let or intends to let the premises for a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.
(ii) That the premises are required for occupation by himself or by his wife or by a son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.
(iii) That he intends to pull down or remodel the premises.
(iv) That vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development.
(v) Where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company, that the premises are required for the purposes of the Department or authority, or of the undertaking of the company.
Provided always that if the award of compensation is refused by the Tribunal on any such grounds as aforesaid the Tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord except in circumstances beyond his control fails to carry out his intention within such period as may be fixed by the Tribunal the landlord shall pay such compensation as would but for Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, have been awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall on application by the tenant fix such compensation accordingly. Provided further that notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-clause (e) hereof the Tribunal shall be entitled to award compensation if the tenant satisfies the Tribunal that the landlord is not acting or has not acted with the bona fide intention of utilising the premises to the best advantage, but for the express purpose of avoiding a claim for compensation.
It does away with my fear and also with the fear expressed by the Home Secretary that there might be an unscrupulous landlord who would deliberately let the
premises at a lower rent than he was receiving from the tenant carrying on the old business to some other trade or business and so cheat the outgoing tenant of his right to compensation. The Amendment set out on page 6 would cover both those fears whether they be real or not. To take my proposed Amendment, I have put down the following: "In page 5, line 29, to leave out from the word 'premises' to the end of line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words
'by reason of which the landlord had let the premises to another tenant for the carrying on of the same trade or business as that of the outgoing tenant at a rental in excess of that offered by or obtained from another tenant requiring the premises for a different trade or business, or in the absence of any such offer in excess of the rental which in the opinion of the tribunal the landlord could obtain if he let for any other purpose whatever.'

Mr. G. JONES: Is that different from the Home Secretary's Amendment in any respect except that it is longer?

Mr. RYE: In my view, all that the tenant need do under the Home Secretary's Amendment is to state that which is obvious and prove what is obvious to the tribunal and get an award. Under my Amendment, he has to show that the premises would command a higher rent than from any other trade or business. If he can show that and can then show that the landlord is seeking to let for another trade in the circumstances indicated the claim for compensation would lie. That point should be made clear beyond the shadow of a doubt. No doubt the Home Secretary will tell me that the provisions already made dealing with the question of demolition or change of user cover the point, but I do not think it should be left in that vague form. It should be made quite clear as is set out on page 6 of the printed Amendment that no award for compensation shall be made if the landlord proves that he has the intention to let to another trade; that he requires the premises for the occupation of himself, his wife, his son or daughter; that he intends to pull down or remodel the premises; or that possession of the premises is required to carry out a scheme of redevelopment. If that Amendment is inserted in the Bill, there will be no doubt whatever; if such words are not put in, we may find that a landlord who has not taken advantage of the tenant in any way, who has pulled
down the premises or has let them for an entirely different trade, will have to face a claim for compensation. Members of the House in all parts I am sure would consider that a grave injustice and it would not be in accord with the statements of the Home Secretary and particularly his statement on the eighth day of the Committee proceedings. I hope therefore, the Amendment will not be accepted, but that another Amendment in the form I have suggested will be found acceptable by the House.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am sure that we had to listen very carefully to understand all that is implied by the manuscript Amendment suggested by the last speaker. But I do not want to comment on that. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is important, from the point of view of traders who have acquired premises and become landlords during the period of a tenant's lease and want to take the user of the premises when the lease has expired, that there should be a really adequate interpretation in the Bill of what is meant by pecuniary advantage to the landlord. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has tried in this Amendment to lay down what shall be in the view of the tribunal the actual pecuniary advantage to the landlord, but in the whole of his explanation to the House it seems he was visualising all the time only one class of landlord, and that was the class of landlord who enters into the original lease. He is not visualising a class of landlord who would buy the premises, which are leased by the sitting tenant, during the course of the lease with the intention as soon as the lease has expired of entering into occupation, not of necessity for carrying on the same class of business, but perhaps for quite another purpose. It is quite clear in another Clause of the Bill that the Government have made some provision for alternative user, but it seems to me that they might do something to say what would be the actual pecuniary advantage to the landlord in the sort of case I have put to him, so that there shall be no doubt or confusion when the tribunal comes to adjudicate upon the matter.
I want to make it perfectly clear that while I am thinking of the very large interest with which the Home Secretary knows the Co-operative Members are concerned, and who have continually in order
to deal with the extension of their business to acquire large properties which are in the course of lease to the sitting tenant, I do not want to suggest anything to the House which would be in any way inimical to the structure of the Bill, or to the genuine interests of the sitting tenant. We are anxious that we should have some better definition in the Bill as to what is pecuniary advantage to the landlord, a landlord who has bought premises in the middle of a lease with the object of taking the premises for genuine business purposes—not necessarily the same class of business—and what should be proved to the tribunal in such a case. I cannot see that the words of the Home Secretary can be applied except in a case where the landlord intended to relet the premises on the expiration of the lease.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Under this Bill, the landlord can destroy the goodwill of a professional man or a trader, and there is no protection either for the professional man or the trader. An analogy has been drawn with the agricultural tenant, but the Bill does not extend to the town tenant the protection which has been given to the agricultural tenant. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there is provision for compensation. When the landlord determines a tenancy, the tenant of the farm can get compensation. There is no protection here for the tenant, but there is every protection for the landowner against any claim which is made by the tenant for compensation.
May I come back to the question of goodwill. I remember the discussion on Second Reading when an hon. Member opposite gave his own experience of where shops were let at a nominal rent to introduce customers into that particular locality, and when that was effected the landlord claimed the right to put up the rent, not because he was going to let the premises for the same trade or same purpose, but because in the meantime a goodwill had been created in the district. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion that goodwill attaches to the property and not to the person. The hon. and learned Member opposite just now suggested that it was a case of whether or not a man was a good fellow, but I would remind him that the legal definition of goodwill has nothing whatever to do with persons, but has to do with the prob-
abilities of the customer returning to the same premises—not necessarily to the same business. I do suggest that the provision here is quite inadequate to meet the case of the town tenant.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The last speaker made reference to goodwill resting in the property, and we had an echo of that in the approval from the other side. The goodwill is something that does not belong either to the property owner, the tenant, or what is called the intermediate landlord. The goodwill belongs to the community absolutely, and I want to make this quite clear. We have been told that you cannot have a goodwill in seven years. Some say five years. Suppose you take communities that have grown up within the last two years. I know of two areas, one of 500, and the other of 700 houses. They are both new areas. As soon as the houses were occupied, the shops began business. The goodwill exists the moment these houses become occupied, because they are dealing with the nearest shop, but that goodwill is not a value that can be claimed by the owner of the property, the owner of the land, or the shopkeeper. That value comes from the fact that there you have a community of people creating a value and that value ought to go back to the people who created it. If you take the site of a shop near a station, how can anyone say they claim the goodwill? The railway company has as much claim as the man in the shop. The whole thing becomes something that can be divided and split in every way until you give it a real basis which is that these values belong to the community. The goodwill belongs to the community. It is created by them, and when we come into power, and it will not be very long, we shall see to it that a big sense of justice will apply to all the work we put in in this House.
I was surprised that the question of multiple shops was not brought up in the Debate. We all know the effects of the multiple shop in a single street, and how it has power to determine exactly what takes place. What protection is this going to give in such a case? None. There is no protection here at all for the man who really has need for it. Apart altogether from the question of goodwill and the question of site, the question of the
protection of a man interested in a business should be dealt with. I speak from an experience in London extending now over four years, but including a very intense two months spent in finding out the details of this Bill in Committee. I find that things might improve if you were dealing direct with the landlord, but when you come into the hands of agents, God help you. I have had enough experience in 10 weeks in London, in connection with looking for a house, to prove to me that the whole of what I call the low-down grievances between landlord and tenant are due more to the agent than to the landlord.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out the word "value" and to insert instead thereof the word "addition."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. If the House will look at proviso (a), they will see that the words are:
the sum to be awarded as compensation … shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding,
and then, lower down, it says:
in determining such value the tribunal,
whereas it ought to read:
in determining such addition.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after the word "different," to insert the words "and more profitable."
The point is, that if the landlord is going to let premises either to be demolished or to be used for a different purpose, it is too wide, and having regard to the words inserted just now in regard to goodwill, I think it should be:
used for a different and more profitable purpose.
As I said when we were discussing the question of claims for improvements after demolition, similarly here I think it would be right that if the landlord is going to utilise the premises, not altogether for a different purpose, but for a different and more profitable purpose, either to himself or to the public interest, then he would himself receive no benefit from the gift of the goodwill that remained in the premises, but for
another reason, it may be the improvement of the whole district, which enabled him to get a higher rent. I am afraid the tenant would not be entitled, under the Bill as drawn, to any compensation from the landlord, because in that case it would be clear that the landlord was using the premises for a different and more profitable purpose than that of letting to my hypothetical fruiterer, but the landlord should not in those circumstances get any goodwill from the fruiterer who had previously carried on the business. If the landlord gets no pecuniary advantage by reason of the element of goodwill left by the fruiterer, I am afraid, under the provisions of this Bill, it is right that he should, not be entitled to receive compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, after the word "willing," to insert the words "and able."
The House will see that the tenant is not entitled to compensation for goodwill if the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing to grant to him a renewal of the tenancy. He might say he was willing to grant it, but he might have so short a term himself that he would not be able to grant it. Therefore, I propose to insert the words "and able." It has always been put to me that what the tenant really prefers more than compensation is an extension of his lease. Therefore, if the landlord, though he might not himself be able, having a short term, is able to get from his superior landlord power to grant a lease of 14 years to a tenant, that would be more advantageous to the tenant than any mere pecuniary compensation, and I think it would be to the advantage also of the landlord, who might not be able to produce the large sum of money necessary to pay the tenant compensation, but who would, at the same time, be able, either himself to grant, or to obtain a grant of, a new lease to the tenant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 7, after the word "tenant," insert the words "or to obtain the grant to him of."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.
I am sorry to move all these Amendments, but I promised from time to time, during the very long and exhaustive Committee stage upstairs, to consider various points, and I promised the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) to consider this point. We had a very grave discussion, in which hon. Members opposite took part, and particularly the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who spoke a little time ago, on the subject of ground or site value, as to how far the goodwill was attributable to the industry and energy of the tenant or how far it was merely attributable to a tube station coming next door or to the general rise in value of property in the neighbourhood. It may be due to both. The hon. Member for Cambridge University will realise that a shop which has been carried on by a fruiterer outside a tube station may have a goodwill and an additional value given to it partly from the industry of the tenant and partly from the fact that the tube station has come there and brought a very large amount of business to it. Therefore, I think there is justice in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, and I propose, if the House agrees, to insert there the words that the tribunal
shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.
That would mean that the value derived from the energy and ability of the tenant who has built up his fruiterer's business by his own industry and energy could be made the subject of compensation by the landlord, but that the value attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises would not be taken into consideration by the tribunal.

Sir H. SLESSER: I wish to oppose this Amendment, principally for the reason that we are putting upon the tribunal a burden which it is perfectly impossible for any judicial machinery to bear. Let us consider what this tribunal have to take into account. They are, first, to have regard to the operations of the tenant, and then they are to disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises. How can they possibly tell how much of the value is attributable to the
one matter or to the other? I submit that by these directions as to what has to be regarded and what has not to be regarded, which have been piling up, one after another, we are putting upon this body an impossible burden and imposing obligations such as no tribunal can satisfactorily fulfil. It would be very much better that things should stand as they are at present in the Bill, where the tribunal are told what they must have regard to and thereafter are left with discretion to say what they think relevant and what they think irrelevant. If we try to think of every possible contingency which may arise and tie up the mind of the tribunal so that they cannot apply a free and unfettered judgment, using their discretion, to the actual facts, then I think the whole machinery of this Act will break down.
Apart from that, I do not believe it is possible for a tribunal to ascertain what is the value attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises. How is it to be done? How is that value to be divorced from the rest of the value? You will find when you come to analyse it that the question of the situation of the premises and the question of what has actually been attributable to the energy of the tenant are indissolubly bound together. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will not press this Amendment, but will leave the Measure as it stands. Already the tribunal have enough statutory directions to make it almost impossible for them to come to any conclusion. There will be endless more opportunities for argument, and that will increase the costs, because every one of these directions as to value or absence of value will mean more evidence, and then in turn more contradiction of that evidence, and there will be more difficulty in the working of the scheme. We ought to hesitate before we burden further a scheme already overburdened with machinery.

Mr. WITHERS: As I have been the villain of the piece, so to speak, I think I ought to try to justify this Amendment. Under the present law goodwill which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises belongs to the landlord. If this Amendment be not inserted that goodwill will pass to the tenant. As a matter of fact, it does not belong to either, it belongs to the community. It
is a very poor law which takes property away from one person to whom it does not belong and gives it to another person to whom it does not belong. That is one argument; and I put forward a further argument. Some day a party will come which will try—and in my opinion properly try—to tax this unearned income. Just look at what will then happen if you do not accept this Amendment. When you go to the landlords and try to tax them they will say, "Tax us! Why should you tax us? We have paid for this. It belongs to the tenant. You must tax the tenant." A nice chance that party will ever have of getting anything out of the tenants! This will not wash; it will not be possible. The only thing to do is to exclude the goodwill which is attached only to the premises; I think that on consideration everybody will agree that there is no alternative.

Mr. HARDIE: The speech to which we have just listened confirms our suspicions of this kind of Amendment. It has already been admitted that the additional value really belongs to the community but the hon. Member who has propose this Amendment has never done anything to secure that value for the community. The only result of this Amendment will be to lay down that the tenant will not have any claim to the goodwill, and it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the landlords. In the ordinary way, the landlord will say: "This is a good site," and he will use that fact as a lever by which to obtain a higher rent. If this Amendment really sought to take that which has been created by the community, it would place things in such a position that neither the landlord nor the tenant would get the benefit. As a matter of fact, this Amendment really strengthens the hands of the landlord. At the present moment, there is a contention with regard to the value of the site and the value of the premises from a trade point of view, but if this Amendment is carried it only places the tenant more in the hands of the landlord. There is no question as to whether it is a good or a bad site, but it is a question of the situation of the property. This is really the most reactionary Amendment that has been placed before us. It is simply a proposal which plays into the hands of the landlord, and if
we are going to vote upon it, I hope it will be left to an open vote of the House, and in that case I am sure that the good sense of hon. Members will wipe out this Amendment.

Mr. G. JONES: I agree with the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) to the effect that this Amendment will put upon us an almost impossible task. This point has already been dealt with in the previous Sub-section, and we have accepted an Amendment defining goodwill as something which has become attached to the premises by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent. That is quite intelligible. You consider the value of the premises without the trade and the value of the same premises with the trade. That is a plain proposition, and it is followed up by the provision made in paragraph (a) of the proviso in Subsection (1), which provides that:
The sum to be awarded as compensation for such goodwill shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding at the termination of the tenancy as may be determined to be the direct result of the carrying on of the trade or business by the tenant or his predecessors in title.
I hope the Home Secretary will take the view that the directions to the tribunal have already been given and can easily be understood. It is almost impossible for any tribunal to say what is the value attributable to the situation of the premises. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds that every one of these directions means more expense and increased complications. If we have a clear definition to the effect that the tenant is to be compensated for his business, it is far better than having these hair-splitting points which make the administration very much more expensive. I hope, therefore, that the Government will withdraw this Amendment, as being quite unnecessary and only adding to the difficulties of the Measure.

Sir G. HOHLER: I hope that the Home Secretary will not withdraw this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the House that, having at a late moment discovered this Amendment, I withdrew an Amendment of my own in favour of it. We are confronted by these figments which never really exist in practice—difficulties which we think no
tribunal can determine, though the description is generally modified by saying that they are exceedingly difficult to determine. Taking the law without any question of unearned increment duties, which may or may not come in our time, I venture to say that it is only just that the direction should be given to the arbitrator or referee as to how he is to ascertain what is to be the compensation. One knows that in great thoroughfares in London, like the Strand, the value of the goodwill is only due to the passersby and to the fact that a good commodity is sold. The instance of a fruit shop was given in Committee. I do not know that particular fruit shop at Cannon Street Station, but I know other fruit shops at stations. To whom do they belong? To limited companies. And whom do they put in? A manager. That is the only way in which they can do it. The landlord is the railway company, and it is the people hurrying to the train, and having no time to shop elsewhere, who call in for their fruit, or it may be their fish, or other articles of that kind which they desire to take home.
Why should not that belong to the railway company? Why should the whole of this turnover, which is entirely brought about by what the railway company has done, be given to the tenant? It is really on the probability of doing trade and the situation of the premises that the rent is paid. If the whole of that is given to the tenant, and he is allowed to bring it into his goodwill, it means taking from the landlord practically the whole value of his property. I submit that that is most unjust, and I welcome this Amendment of the Home Secretary. If it be not carried, I wonder what the position of any landlord might be. This subject is always discussed on the assumption that all landlords are rich and well-to-do, but that is not always the case. I will undertake to say that this Measure will affect the poorer landlords—people who have invested their savings in small properties, and let out shops to tenants and are living on the proceeds—to a greater extent than it will affect the bigger ones.
I cannot conceive of any principle upon which this Amendment can be validly excluded. It is a direction to the referee. Where would be the difficulty? He would, I suppose, examine the books, and ascertain who are the regular customers to whom goods are sent at a distance, and
probably he would say that that is not attributable to the situation of the premises. But suppose that a man can produce no books, but simply shows a number of cash transactions and does not know the names of the customers, who buy the goods and walk away with them. I should have said that that was solely due to the situation of the premises, and had nothing to do with the tenant at all. Therefore, so far from thinking that this would make matters more difficult, I think it would be easier. When this matter was discussed in Committee, I believe the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) was present, and he never spoke against the Amendment. It may be that he voted against it: I do not know; or it may be that he was not present; but we put forward our views in support of it. Now the Home Secretary has introduced this Amendment to meet the views expressed by the Committee, and, as I have said, I withdrew my Amendment earlier in favour of this Amendment, although I should have liked to have left out the word "exclusively," so that it would read:
and shall disregard any value which is attributable to the situation of the premises.
I think that that would be fairer; but the Home Secretary has gone to the trouble of using the word "exclusively," which is in favour of the tenant. I hope he will adhere to his Amendment, and will, if necessary, press it to a Division.

Mr. DAVID REID: I quite appreciate what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, but this short Debate has had one prominent result. We have had a repudiation of the idea that it is possible to estimate the value that attaches to any premises by reason of the situation. That is the basis of the whole of the land taxation policy of the Opposition. That policy has been repudiated officially from the Front Bench, and that is the best proof that you are dealing with an impossible problem. We have had agreement from the Opposition Front Bench and I suggest that, both sides being agreed that they are asked to estimate something that it is impossible to estimate, the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLER: I hope the Home Secretary will stick to his Amendment. The object
of the Bill seems to be quite clear—to prevent the landlord from taking part of the goodwill which has been built up by the tenant. With that object I am in complete sympathy. We are dealing now with a goodwill which is not in any way built up by the tenant, but is merely applicable to the situation of the premises. That is a totally different case which was never contemplated by the Bill. But the other question arises, whether it is necessary or not to put in this Clause for the guidance of the tribunal. A good many attempts were made in Committee to define goodwill, but every attempt failed. As it is impossible clearly to define goodwill under the Bill, it is all the more necessary to explain as far as possible what is the intention of the Government. Hence the advisability of putting in the Clause for the guidance of the tribunal. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will stick to the Amendment.

Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the difficulty found in defining goodwill in the Committee. I tried to disintegrate these two somewhat mysterious elements, one called goodwill and the other called site value. I do not know that I would not rather accept the words proposed by the Home Secretary in view of the discussions on the Finance Bill later on. I am only intervening now because I want to press home the lesson. I am utterly opposed to any tenant receiving something for what he is pleased to call goodwill which is entirely site value, but I fail to see that any words included in this Bill are going to disintegrate these two elements. I rather agree that they were both one thing, namely, site value. I do not know how far my colleagues on this side of the House are going on this matter, but for reasons which I have already hinted at, I would rather support the Home Secretary and allow the words to remain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GATES: I beg to move. in page 6, line 25, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
but no compensation for goodwill shall be payable in the case of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors when the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused.
I can conceive that it would be very hard to put upon a landlord a claim
for compensation when his tenant had so conducted the house, either by doing an illegitimate business or by carrying on the business contrary to the law and so getting the licence refused and the value of the premises to the landlord seriously impaired. I submit that it would be contrary, not only to all right and equity, but to the best interests of police administration and licensing administration that any claim should be allowed under the circumstances. I hope the Home Secretary may see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend who has been to see me and has talked this matter over with me—and I suggested an Amendment to him—his Amendment is quite unnecessary. If the licence has been taken away for any cause at all the landlord gets possession of the premises which has no licence and which cannot be used for the goodwill by anybody but the licensed victualler. The goodwill is for the licensed victualler, and as the licensed victualler cannot use the premises because the licence is taken away, it is clear there is no goodwill where compensation should be granted. The words, if put in, would, in my humble judgment,, only complicate the Bill, and I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RYE and other hon. Members: In page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:

(e) No award of compensation shall be made if the landlord proves:

(i) That he has let or intends to let the premises for a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.

(ii) That the premises are required for occupation by himself or by his wife or by a son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.

(iii) That he intends to pull down or remodel the premises.

(iv) That vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development.

(v) Where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company, that the premises are required for the purposes of the Department or authority, or of the undertaking of the company.

Provided always that if the award of compensation is refused by the Tribunal on any such grounds as aforesaid the Tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord except in circumstances beyond his control fails to carry out his intention within such period as may he fixed by the Tribunal the landlord shall pay such compensation as would but for Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, have been awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall on application by the tenant fix such compensation accordingly. Provided further that notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-clause (e) hereof the Tribunal shall be entitled to award compensation if the tenant satisfies the Tribunal that the landlord is not acting or has not acted with the bona fide intention of utilising the premises to the best advantage, but for the express purpose of avoiding a claim for compensation.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) and other hon. Members would make the Clause quite unreadable.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move in page 6, line 32, after the word "authority," to insert the words "or a charity."
The object of this Amendment is to put charities, by which is meant universities, colleges and public schools not run for profit, on the same basis as statutory or public utility companies. I should like to point out that ex hypothesi, it is not a question of compensation for goodwill. My suggestion is that as these bodies are for public benefit and cannot carry on a business, they should be in the same position as public authorities, statutory or public utility companies. There is really nothing more to say than that.

Mr. G. JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept the Amendment.

Sir W. PERRING: I am rather surprised that my benevolent Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) should introduce such an uncharitable Amendment on behalf of a charity. They are appealing every day to these tradesmen for their charity, and they now turn round and suggest that they should have preferential rights over ordinary individuals. It means this, that the charities are going to impose a compulsory contribution on tenants whether they desire it or not. The tenant is entitled to compensation under the Bill; if
he is not, he will not receive compensation; but having established a claim for compensation, he is to be asked to waive that claim because his landlord is a charity. I cannot understand the Home Secretary so readily accepting this Amendment and permitting a charitable organisation to inflict an injustice upon the tenant. There is the case of a tenant who has established a goodwill. Under the Bill he is entitled to compensation, but it is now suggested that because it is a charity it should be privileged to take from the tenant something that he has created, and let the premises for an enhanced rent. It enables a charity to get away with the advantage which a tenant has created and pay no compensation. It enables a charity to let the premises, if they so desire, for an increased sum, thereby gaining an advantage at the expense of the tenant. I am sure my benevolent friend has no desire to do that.

Mr. WITHERS: If my hon. Friend will allow me, that is not so. The Clause will read:
where any Government Department, or a local or public authority, or a charity.
The reason for the Amendment is this. Suppose a house adjoining one of the colleges at Oxford or Cambridge is wanted for the actual extension of the college, they will be able at the expiration of the existing tenancy to take it and use it for that purpose.

Sir G. HOHLER: I rather think this is going too far. If I recollect rightly, when this Bill was introduced in the House a question was directly put as to a Government Department and we were told that they would be treated just as other members of the community. I can see no reason why, if the Bill is sound in principle, a Government Department or a public utility society, or anybody else, should be treated in a different way to any other landlord. These charities are always claiming, and no doubt rightly, that they are doing great public work. We have often had the case of charities put in regard to relief from Income Tax. Take the case that has been put for this Amendment. I am speaking on the assumption that this Bill is just, but I must not necessarily be taken to affirm that. On the assumption that the Bill is just, what is to happen? Apparently a charity is entitled to support itself on
what it receives from its tenants, and I do not suppose that a charity is more charitable to its tenants than any other landlord, and then, for some reason, they determine the tenancy. In such a case, why should not they pay compensation to the tenant? A disability is to be created in respect of the tenant of a charity. Under this Clause it is provided that a Government Department or a local or public authority or other like bodies may determine their leases and escape the burden of paying the compensation which this Bill is throwing on other landlords. The Clause says:
Where any Government Department, or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company have, in pursuance of the powers contained in the lease, terminated the lease by resuming possession of the premises for the purpose of the Department, or any other Government Department, or of the authority, or of the undertaking of the company, or where premises the tenancy whereof has expired by effluxion of time are required for any such purpose no compensation shall be payable under this Section.
There is no limitation in that paragraph with respect to a charity requiring premises for their own purposes. If I wanted to make more money for the purpose of the charity and I saw the opportunity of doing so, I could say "Gentlemen! We will determine the lease. We can make more money by doing so." Such a course might be permissible if language in any loose way is to be admitted. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). I know what he has in his mind. He is thinking of collegiate charities and so on, but I submit that they ought to be treated just as any other landlord.
I deplore this Clause. On the assumption that this Bill is just, it is unfair that because a tenant who happens to be under the Crown or under a local or public authority or a statutory or public utility company is to be subjected to a disability, that disability, is to be extended to the tenant of a charity. Surely they ought to bear their just obligations. I suppose it is too late to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. I think there is some collusion between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cambridge University. They are always patting one another on the back.
The Home Secretary gets up and says, "I accept this," although we are trying to keep him right. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to accept the Amendment and we know that the Government Whips are on, it is impossible for us to carry our point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6. line 38, after the word "authority" insert the words "or of the charity."—[Mr. Withers.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Right to new lease in certain cases.)

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 7, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words "entitled to claim" and to insert instead thereof the words "he would be entitled to."
This is rather a technical drafting Amendment. At the beginning of Clause 5 it says:
Where the tenant alleges that, though entitled to claim compensation . . . 
It is clear the words "though entitled to claim" are not the right words. The whole world could claim. I propose to insert the words, "though he would be entitled to claim compensation." It is a more correct and stronger expression. He must satisfy the tribunal that he would be entitled to compensation under Clause 4 before he can be entitled to go for a new lease under Clause 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HOHLER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words "but such new lease shall in no case exceed the landlord's interest in the premises."

Mr. MacLAREN: Which landlord do you mean?

Sir G. HOHLER: The immediate landlord of the tenant. I submit that that is just and that if you do anything more you are creating not only a novel departure but one which will prove the ruin of many and in my opinion will mean the destruction of progress in building and improvement. No one can doubt that in our lifetime London has been enormously improved. If this Bill had existed no such progress would in my opinion have been made. Take the case of a man who has the fag end of a lease and who wants to sell the business. He may assign the
residue of his term to some new tenant who may thereupon claim under these Clauses for a lease saying that he prefers it to compensation. In other words, with only a short term remaining of an old lease, he can go into possession and demand a renewal as against not only his immediate landlord but as against the owner of the reversion.
If there are a number of lessees intervening between the owner of the reversion and the man who is claiming the lease, this tenant who has got this short lease may claim not only compensation but a new lease. I submit that that is an innovation which we ought not to pass lightly. Who has ever heard a proposition advanced that it is just that a tenant should have a right as against the man who is not his landlord at all? He can enter into his bargain. He can inquire, when he is negotiating with his immediate landlord, "What is your term? Five years? That is not enough for me, and I will not take it." It may be six years or ten years or anything else. The man is quite enabled to do that. He knows that he has taken premises for a short term, and that at the end of the lease he will have to go out. Now he can claim that his short lease can be converted into a term of 14 years. What an injustice that is! It does not end there. There is the right of the tenant to goodwill up to the date of the renewal, and yet he can create a new goodwill against the new landlord after the 14 years have expired. So you are encumbering a property which has been let on a long lease, which has come to an end; you are encumbering a property in the hands of the reversioner after the 14 years term, and there is the liability to pay for goodwill at the end of that term. It is most unjust.

Mr. RYE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is hardly time to answer the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. If the words of the Amendment were inserted they would knock the bottom out of one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. You might have one landlord behind another. It is impossible to say that a lease of possibly three days should be compensated for goodwill. Under the provisions of the Bill notice should be served by one landlord on the other, and the tribunal may decide what length of lease should be awarded by the two landlords in conjunction. I can see no real hardship in that proposition, and I hope the House will agree that the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend would be a knock-out to one of the main provisions of the Bill, and will support the Government in this matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have been listening with great interest—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.